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
    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.