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.

  • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    That’s still not going to stop any crimes. They still have the right to buy it, if they can pass the background check. If they want to commit a crime with it, the fact that it’s illegal to do so without insurance means nothing and prevents nothing.

    • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yeah, that’s the typical “but murder is already illegal!” pro-gun argument. I don’t think insurance policies are a good solution, but if it at least prevents the “mostly law-abiding citizen with anger issues who will use a gun against someone if given an excuse, but is too much of a pussy to carry one around illegally” from getting a gun, then that’s better than nothing.

      • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        You still don’t seem to understand that this would not prevent anyone from getting a gun. It would not, read up on the details.

        • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          I can read. My point is that lots of people buy a gun specifically to carry it in public. If they know they are uninsurable and won’t be able to carry it without getting into legal trouble (assuming there is a dissuasive penalty for illegally carrying… which is doubtful), they might not get a gun.

          Sure, you can make up a lot a scenarios where this law is completely ineffective but you also can’t pretend that it necessarily won’t have any effect.