Maryland House Democrats introduced a controversial gun safety bill requiring gun owners to forfeit their ability to wear or carry without firearm liability insurance.

Introduced by Del. Terri Hill, D-Howard County, the legislation would prohibit the “wear or carry” of a gun anywhere in the state unless the individual has obtained a liability insurance policy of at least $300,000.

"A person may not wear or carry a firearm unless the person has obtained and it covered by liability insurance issued by an insurer authorized to do business in the State under the Insurance Article to cover claims for property damage, bodily injury, or death arising from an accident resulting from the person’s use or storage of a firearm or up to $300,000 for damages arising from the same incident, in addition to interest and costs,” the proposed Maryland legislation reads.

  • mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    You forgot the “well regulated” part of the “well regulated militia”

    That’s why we even have gun laws in the first place. Congress and state governments have the authority to do so.

    • Wogi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      That’s not what regulated means in this context.

      “A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state” implies that without a standing army, we need well armed citizens.

      Regulated in this case, means supplied.

      However it’s so fucking vague, it literally guarantees the right to keep and bear arms completely separately from the militia statement.

      You could argue that the national guard is the militia, and they’re very well regulated. But it doesn’t matter, because the second amendment doesn’t clarify who gets to have guns, just that everybody should be able to keep and carry them. You could even argue that restricting access to firearms for convicted felons is unconstitutional because the second amendment doesn’t fucking clarify.

      It’s poorly written, is what I’m getting at.

      • Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Super vague. You could interpret that regulated to mean that the militia needs to be skilled or trained as well, which would support OPs opinion.

        Edit: typo