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.
Awesome. We’re going to apply it to cops too, right?
Right?
Did you read the article? Yes, it applies to police.
Here’s the problem…
We can require automobile insurance because driving a car isn’t a right.
Now, owning a gun is a right, and you could argue that wearing or carrying the gun is not, but then you have to go back to New York vs Bruen:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/20-843/
New York used to require special permission to wear or carry a gun. You had to provide special justification for your need to carry and “because I don’t feel safe” or “I want to defend myself” wasn’t good enough.
Supreme Court ruled:
“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.”
Given that, I can’t imagine they would hold an insurance requirement to be constitutional.
Should Alex Jones be forced to have liability insurance before spouting off conspiracy theories on InfoWars? Yeah, probably. But that’s not the way the first amendment works either.
None of those other amendment rights are an inherent physical danger to innocent people. The Second Amendment is.
Carrying concealed does not pose an inherent danger to anyone either.
In fact:
"Combining Florida and Texas data, we find that permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth of the rate for police officers.
Among police, firearms violations occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Among permit holders in Florida and Texas, the rate is only 2.4 per 100,000. That is just 1/7th of the rate for police officers. But there’s no need to focus on Texas and Florida — the data are similar in other states."
A weapon poses an inherent danger no matter how it’s carried or not carried. It’s the very nature of a weapon. Having insurance makes sense.
Hopefully the criminals who typically commit robberies, murders, etc will forgo that lifestyle when they remember they don’t have the insurance to do it. I can’t see anywhere this law would not he a benefit to all.
Imagine living in a place where owning a gun isn’t the real controversy, and this isn’t already a law…
Literally the only gun I want right now is in the VR game pistol whip. It also get me exercising.
wait until you discover things like bears, or mountain lions.
I’ve seen Disney cartoons. Animals are cute, cuddly, and help you get dressed
Do we really need to help insurance companies make more money? Are thier stocks low?
They’re jealous of pharma companies the last few years.
Another right-wing bill that gives the rich power over poor, disguised as left-wing bill. All politicians in power are rich, which is why they always push for right-wing politics, democrat or republican, always end up against the working class. There is a good video about this.
If the statistics show what gun fanatics claim, that guns keep people safer, then our capitalist market will compete down to a very low price because it won’t be expensive for the insurers. Econ 101.
It keeps the rich safer from the working class to rebel against them. This bill only makes more of a gap and gives more power to the rich, over the poor.
I think your position would have more bite if it was based solely on ownership, but it’s about carry. If it gets to the point of rich people and poor people shooting at each other in the streets, it won’t matter much what the law is on this and people will be bringing their guns out.
When black panters were around, they would just carry the weapons, to show that if some white nationalist attack, they will not just sit there. Now whenever cops see someone marching with a gun, to protect the union strike or whatever, they can just arrest them, without any shooting even occurring. While anyone backed by the rich, will be able to pass by police with AR 15 with no problem. Just imagine two groups that started as a peacful protest being face to face, while one group is heavily armed and other is not.
If the issue is that the police are going to favor the rich, it matters not what the law is, as that same example you just gave could be true regardless of this insurance law.
This bill is making it legal to favor the rich. They can stop everyone and ask for papers, but those who represent the interest of the capitalist class will be able to have them, while the working class won’t.
Seems fair. If the risk is low, cost will be low. Let the free market decide, right?
Pay to carry seems pretty not ok to me.
You are walking around with a deadly weapon. We test, register, and insure people who drive around with a deadly weapon.
Nothing about the 2A says you do not assume liability for exercising your right. ain fact, all of US case on this would say the opposite. You absolutely assume liability for both what you do with your weapons, and what you fail to do with your weapons.
Its cheap because theres almost no risk. Tiger attack insurance is very cheap in the US too.
So whats the point? Insurance cant possibly solve any actual problems associated with gun violence.
Well the liability aspect does include some risk.
It also depends if it’s on the weapon or person.
Specifically if the gun insured is used in a crime or to cause see harm. It doesn’t have to be the most extreme scenario.
If it’s per gun, that could easily be hundreds or thousands per month per gun hoarder.
Unconstitutional, can’t require insurance to exercise a right.
My favorite quote from Thomas Jefferson concerning the 2nd amendment: “You know I got that thang on me. Pull up”
So, let me see if I’ve got this right.
Maryland wants to have a privately-enforced tax on the exercise of a constitutional right. Do I have that more or less correct? Perhaps you could also have a requirement that all religious congregations or any kind have a $1B policy in case there is sexual misconduct by a member of the congregation?
Do I have that more or less correct?
Only if you believe it’s an individual right, which you can’t without ignoring half the amendment that creates it.
Well, yeah, actually I can, because of the history surrounding that text, and what it meant when it was written.
The part you are conveniently ignoring is the body of the constitution prior to the bill of rights that gives congress the power to raise an army, and to equip that army. If congress already has the power to raise an army/militia and provide arms for them, then why would you need an amendment saying that congress can’t pass laws to prevent itself from arming an army? (For your reference that is Article 1, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power … To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years …To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions … To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”
Moreover, when you look at the bill of rights, all of the rights are pertaining to individual people (or people and states, in the case of 10A). It’s pretty clear that the freedom of the press isn’t a collective right, but one that is an individual right.
Beyond that, you need to understand what they meant by militia; the militia was every able-bodied male below about 50 (not sure on the exact age cutoffs); in many cases they were legally obligated to provide their own arms (despite the constitution saying that the gov’t could pay for them), those arms were required to be militarily useful, and they were required to train both on their own and with other members of the militia.
Yawn. I’ve heard those arguments before and they’re all what I categorize as mental gymnastics.
I’m not very opinionated on guns tbh, but I do think this only makes it more difficult for poor people. I’m not sure I agree with that.
That’s the exact point of these bills. Don’t ever assume that safety is the priority of these bills. They don’t want the working poor to have rights.
They want to take the guns from poor people! When is this going to end? What about the right to bear arms that’s in the CoNSTituTioN?
This is what happens when you start falling for right-wing ideas disguised as left-wing. The problem never was that constitution is allowing for people to hurt each other, the problem is that the working class is disproportionally hurt by shootings and now they will give even more power away from the poor and allow the rich kids to shoot at civil-rights protesters.
Pretty sure I haven’t fell for right wing ideas in a few decades. Bear in mind I’m not from thebstates and this all thing of carryingnguns makes me think of somalia, not a civilized western country.
I’ve been to civil rights protests elsewhere, no firearms but acab everywhere. I’d expect carrying (and showing) a gun would be making l rich kids and the pigs a favour: they can now write off your murder as self defence even if it was filmed by a body cam.
They can still claim self defence that they were attacked by a knife or a rock, changes nothing.
Right-wing politics is everything that promotes giving power of one group over the other. Giving the rich more power to own weapons, while taking it away from working class, is a right-wing idea, by definition. It is not right-wing to claim everybody should own weapons, it is right-wing to claim, only the rich, or only the state or only the white should own the weapons, while others are not allowed,
Sorry that might be the politically correct definition that kids give it today to feel good and click on each other but every bill, law or decision shifts power from a group to another and that’s not always a bad thing. And not always a right wing thing.
It is only definition that makes sense. There is a good video about it. If you shift power back to the people that are a working class, or in other words, if it promotes equality in decision-making power, than it is a left-wing policy. If it is a law that gives more power to the ruling/capitalist/rich class, it is a right-wing policy.
IIRC, shooting someone in self-defense can still add up to about $500,000 in legal costs.
I’m not sure enforcing liability insurance makes it harder on poorer people as much as helps them potentially avoid insurmountable financial hardship should they ever need to use their CCW.
@mob expressed himself wrong. It doesn’t really hurt the poor people directly, but it does transfer even more power to rich by allowing them to arm themselves and stopping anyone from working class to do so as well. It is ultimately a right-wing bill disguised as left-wing, as all laws end up being in the end.
A $1 million umbrella policy is like $200/year.
Who can afford guns but not a $300k insurance policy to avoid going bankrupt if they have to use them?
Maybe people with bad credit scores? If everyone can afford it, why make it into a bill? Is it just marketing for politicains so they can just pretend they are doing something about it, or are they actively discriminating from the poor.
If everyone can afford it, why make it into a bill?
The same reason you need car insurance to drive or medical insurance?
Because even if most can afford the insurance, most can’t afford the costs when they’d need the insurance but don’t have it?
With medical insurance the money goes to paying the hospital bill. We need insurance to cover the costs. What do I get with a gun insurance? Cost for what? Free guns? If I get nothing in return, I should pay nothing.
It’s to cover things like payouts in suits against you for shooting someone or paying your legal bills (which can exceed hundreds of thousands of dollars even when it’s clearly self-defense).
Owning a gun isn’t that expensive. But should you ever have to use it for your safety, even when justified, it could bankrupt you.
That’s exactly the kind of situation where mandated insurance is a wise thing to require.
