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.

  • scoobford@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    10 months ago

    Reasonable vs unreasonable expense. You need to buy a gun, ammunition, and a training course? Not a problem. You need to buy a gun, ammo, and a $300k golden stamp, that’s not fine, because it is prohibitively expensive.

    If this type of insurance is illegal or prohibitively expensive, then this will be struck down. If not, it might be permitted, or it might not. The supreme court is extremely conservative right now, so I suspect it would be struck down regardless.

    • vithigar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      a $300k golden stamp

      $300k of liability insurance does not cost $300k. That’s literally the point of insurance.

      • SkippingRelax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        That should be part of a citizenship test. If you fail, you should probably not be allowed to own a gun. Or vote.

      • scoobford@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        I picked an arbitrary number, which happened to match the article. I am aware $300k insurance doesn’t cost $300k.

        • Pogbom@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Your case is for reasonable vs unreasonable expenses though. When someone can afford thousands for a gun and many other recurring expenses, a $50-100/month policy is completely reasonable. At the very least, it doesn’t separate gun ownership into different wealth classes.

            • Pogbom@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              It isn’t if they want to own a tool that can accidentally and immediately end a life. The guy below you made a joke about a car and insurance, but that’s actually a great point. Just because you can find a $300 car doesn’t mean you’re absolved from getting insurance in case you crash or kill someone. And that’s a car, something that’s crucial to a lot of people’s survival. Even better argument for a gun.

          • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            $600 /year fee

            “completely reasonable”

            Please put down the internet and bring that talk to some poors, I guarantee that you’ll get laughed at openly

            • SkippingRelax@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              10 months ago

              They probably can review their budget and decide owning a gun is not that important, along with cancelling Netflix? Is that such a big deal?

              • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                The point is that as presently interpreted, gun ownership is an individual right that like the rest of the bill of rights, subjects any restriction against that right to ‘strict scrutiny’. Just like free speech or voting. The government cannot charge a fee to vote or hold a college debate, this also is well settled case law.

                • SkippingRelax@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Can’t believe I’m arguing laws on lemmy, I’m neither a lawyer nor American nor i really know much on the subject, shooting in the dark… Is gun ownership of “bearing arms” that is an individual right tho?

                  Can’t afford to insure an f-16 doesn’t mean that I’m entitled to own one or that the government is restricting me.

                  If you can’t afford insurance on a gun you can always excercise your god given rights with a different weapon, leave the house with a knife, a stick or a fork and use them to defend your township

                  • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    Yes, the courts have throughout history ruled 2A as an individual right.

                    An F-16 is absolutely unaffordable, but that’s not because the government added a tax. Flying lessons and pilots license are required for all flying, and flying is not an individual right.

            • Pogbom@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Why are “the poors” buying expensive guns? If you’re buying a tool that can accidentally and instantly murder someone very easily, and you have no way to pay for that mistake, then gun ownership is too expensive for you.

              • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago
                1. Not all guns are expensive. Single barrel shotguns start around $200.
                2. It’s an individual right, which a large body of jurisprudence has ruled cannot have ‘undue onerous’ limitations or fees. Talk to your legislators or court officials on that one, but that’s the law atm.
                • Pogbom@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  “Undue” is a word with a huge range of meaning though. You’re buying a device whose sole purpose is to kill or injure, and it’s exceptionally good at doing those things accidentally. If you want to own a device like that, accident insurance is not all undue.

                  In fact it’s kinda surprising that people can get guns without it. I feel like in an alternate universe where gun insurance was the norm, people would think it’s insane to remove that requirement. It’s a requirement for cars which are now less deadly than guns and arguably way more important to people’s survival, but people think gun ownership is such a marker of liberty that they’re willing to put the rest of society at risk for it.

          • scoobford@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            I think you are both massively overestimating how expensive gun ownership is, and underestimating how narrow many people’s finances are.

            Guns start under $200. $500 or $600 will get you most whatever you want used or from a budget brand.

            And there is a noteworthy segment of the population that could not afford $100 every month. Probably not enough for the supreme court to care, but enough to be a troubling precedent.

            • Pogbom@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              I appreciate the info because frankly I didn’t know they were that cheap. I still don’t think that absolves someone of being able to pay for an accidental injury/death caused by a tool that’s designed to do specifically that.