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.

  • just_change_it@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    This would go to the supreme court who would rule that restricting the right to bear arms to someone’s financial status is unconstitutional or some shit.

    • tacosplease@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      My constitutional right to an AR 15 depends on my ability to pay $2,000 or whatever they cost. Not in my budget. The old bank account needs more freedoms it seems.

      This is a joke, but seriously though - how is affordability an argument when guns also cost money?

      • scoobford@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 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
          13
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          a $300k golden stamp

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

          • scoobford@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 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
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              5 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.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        sure 2 grand is a lot of money, but dont go and tell me your car is affordable because you spent 10 grand on it.

        Or that your house was worth the money, or whatever place you rent currently, or all those things that you probably pay for monthly.

        It’s a one time cost, for a weapon, that if correctly maintained will last basically forever.

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I could build you one for ~$350. It would function fine, just be made out of inferior parts (and make more work for me because QC), A2 furniture, all that jazz.

        I don’t have Maryland® Gun Insurance™ but I do have car insurance, and a one time payment of $350 is cheaper than my car insurance by a hefty bit and I have a good driving record. Thing is, insurance payments are recurring rather than one time so it starts to build up.

      • thoughtorgan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Really?

        How is affordability a concern for insulin, when it also costs money?

        Obviously one is a medical necessity and the other is not. But the point carries.

        Lawful users of firearms are disproportionately affected by this, compared to the murderer that’s getting their firearms illicitly.

        It’s not solving a problem, it’s pushing the accessibility further away from the common man. Bit by bit.

        • SkippingRelax@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          As a non American. Why the fuck do you need access to an ar15 or whatever that was in the first place though. Normal people would think that pushing accessibility away from the common man is a fucking good thing! Are you also interested in getting your hands on chemical weapons while we are at it? do you see it as a problem when your government is trying to limit access to mustard gas or chlorine gas for the common man?

          Bit by bit, these bills could help the US to get into the 20th century and start to catch up with Western world civilization.

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Also non-American here and I have indeed eyed an AR-15 once or twice. That’d be contingent on me getting a hunting license, though, and while I’d like to it’s probably something for retirement.

            Why AR-15? Semi-auto, reliable, very accurate. “But it’s a weapon of war” a) no it isn’t, it just looks like one because it’s modern and b) your grandpa’s Mauser 98 is a weapon of war, it probably even was on the front!

          • thoughtorgan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            It’s a gun?

            There’s nothing special about an AR-15. It’s 2023, detachable magazine and rail mounts are not some whacky new technology.

            You’re incredibly uneducated about firearms, their features and effectiveness. It shows. Retards like you trying to pass legislation on something you know nothing about is how we got to where we are.

            You’re afraid of a big black gun with optics and a laser. Not realizing a rifle from the early 1900’s compares reasonably well ballistically with a modern rifle. A fucking shotgun used for hunting is really just as deadly as an AR-15 in the grand scheme of things.

            There’s more guns in America than people. The cats out the fucking bag. You’re never going to see reduction in ownership, it just isn’t happening.

            We’re (common man) limited federally to semi automatic only. It’s been that way for ages. Only military and certain police agencies can get fully automatic firearms.

            I need access because I don’t trust cops to protect me. I want to be self sufficient, I want to be able to protect myself.

            You enjoy being not responsible for your own safety. I don’t.

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

              It’s actually because of retards like you that YOU collectively are where YOU are. I’m not there with you, I live in a place where my kids don’t have to do drills at school for shootings. But sure you know better because you know something about firearms.

              What I really enjoy is to live in a safe place. You are not romantically responsible for your own safety as you like to think, you are just a pathetic wannabe cowboy.

              • thoughtorgan@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                How can you realistically make the argument that someone who knows nothing about something can make a proper decision about it.

                You’re fixated on AR-15’s, which is tech from the 1960’s. There’s so many comparable options it’s laughable.

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

                  What an interesting angle. I don’t know much about guns technical details, I know about banning firearms. The country I live in did it and was successful at it, you gin nuts keep hiding behind minutiae.

                  I’m not fixated on ar15. I mentioned it just because the guy above me did. All guns should be banned from the US, more clear now?

          • HACKthePRISONS@kolektiva.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            >Bit by bit, these bills could help the US to get into the 20th century and start to catch up with Western world civilization.

            what does “under no pretext” mean?

    • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      Well it is. If you’re going to let everyone have guns, you shouldn’t restrict ownership based on who can afford insurance on it.

      I don’t think any private citizen should be able to own guns anyway though.

      • just_change_it@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        5 months ago

        I agree that individuals shouldn’t own guns.

        I think the second amendment should always been about the right to have state organized militias. I think that is a fair thing to have to avoid tyranny. The convoluted mess of a legal argument that judges have stood up to justify everyone having guns is just insane to me. The ultra minority who have easy access to guns and shoot people up… every single week… is not worth the benefit of having 60% right side hearing loss by 40 like my gun loving friends in the midwest.

        • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Have people in the Midwest never heard of hearing protection or something? I was raised in a rural area and did target and clay shooting a lot. I always wore hearing protection, and my ears work just fine now.

          I most definitely agree with your ideas on state militias, especially in more populated areas. I think at least hunting rifles and shotguns should be available to people living in rural areas.

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

            A good point in on your ears…but here’s my counterpoint: protecting yourself is stoopid.

            You want gun nuts to wear earplugs at the range, can’t even get them to wear a damn cloth over their face in an ER waiting room.