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.
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.
Look at history: there where big and powerful right- and leftextreme goverments not far apart. Both sides where not a fun place to be in. Both where authoritarian dictatorships. If you go too far left or right you end up in an authorion regime with no power for the many.
The rights you enjoy are fleeting without enforcement mechanisms.
I’m not right wing. I’m a socialist.
But it also makes sure you get paid something in case accidents, at least in theory.
It’s ridiculously easy to do 300k plus of accidental damages misusing a gun, but most people don’t have 300k to pay even if a court orders them to.
Great, if my child is shot dead in school by some rich kid, at least I get 300k to pay for child funeral. /s
I mean, it IS better than nothing. But I’m mostly referring to stupid accidents (poorly mantained gun exploding or dude playing with the safe and accidentally firing injuring someone) 300k is a whole lot better than 0
This is how working class constantly loses power and rich constantly get more privileges. They complain about a policy that affects them more than the rich, some “left-wing” rich politician says “ok, we will change it, but only for the poor” and they are like “I guess it’s the start” and the end goal never comes. Imagine if this was done during Black Panter movement, where now they can’t arm themselves because the are disproportionly poorer. Gangs can still get illegal guns, shot unarmed civilians and make poor naigboorhoods even less safe, while rich kids can feel even safer to go armed and pick a fight with civil-rights protesters. Any law that affects the working class more negatively than the rich is making things worse, not better.
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.
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.
I think you are the first person in this thread to understand that $300k is the policy amount, not the cost…
Yeah, I am anti gun, but if I lived in America, I’d definitely have one
That is cause the US is such a shithole, you need a gun to feel safe.
Just like any other developing nation with a gun problem.
Exactly. My values aren’t going to matter when the reality hits of some bloke holding my family hostage. I would need to have the tools available to eliminate that scallywag immediately
Oh no poor people not being allowed to carry their piece anymore if they cant afford insurance, how unjust. How are they going to survive?