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.
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.
Seems fair. If the risk is low, cost will be low. Let the free market decide, right?
It will be low. Super low. $300k is pocket change when the incidence for gun carriers to use them is extremely low. It’s why we can constantly mock the tacti-cool warriors for thinking they need a gun on them at all times. Plus, the insurance company has way more flexibility in proving their client was not at fault in the incident compared to the shenanigans they have to pull now for car wrecks.
It’s hard to imagine a reasonable objection, then. I don’t trust insurance companies very much, but if there’s one thing they do well, it’s associating risk with cost.
deleted by creator
Free market pricing. Requiring someone to be indemnified when they are taking on risk greater than they could ever hope to repay if something goes wrong seems perfectly reasonable to me.
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.
I would bet that tiger attack insurance for someone who brings a tiger with then in public would be astronomical.
The point is to put the burden of cost where it actually belongs. Instead of society footing the bill, now gun owners will pay into an insurance system that will cover costs in the event of damage.
Ok, I’ll try a better analogy. Why not require fist-punching insurance for anyone who wants to take their hands out in public?
Personal liability insurance exists. It’s often included in home or renter’s insurance. If someone knows they’re likely to end up in a lawsuit because they love punching people, it would behoove them to get that.
But the damage that can be done by a pair of fists is often a low enough dollar number (and jail time) that it can reasonably be paid by the person owning them. A broken orbital socket is a hell of a lot cheaper than, say, three people’s lives. There’s also unlikely to be collateral damage with fists, since they can only travel so far. Most people can’t pay for the damages in a shooting event, and right now that cost is instead being covered by taxpayers.
Insurance isn’t for the small things, like a broken window or punching someone. It’s for very expensive, sometimes catastrophic damage.
Well, CCW insurance really only covers legal costs associated with CCW use. Unfortunately in some states, it’s entirely possible (and in some states likely!) that someone who uses their firearm in self defense can get charged with a crime or sued by their attackers, regardless of how justified their use of force was.
I’m aware of some policies that cover third party damages like hospital bills and property damage, but the victims in this case are never held liable anyway.
So am I missing something? Especially given that practically all gun violence and deaths come from suicide and organized crime, how does this bill help anyone? CCW holders are statistically much less likely to break laws than those who don’t have a license, these people really shouldn’t worry anyone. This reeks of political posturing to me.
Edit: Just read that the law requires bodily harm and property damage coverage, so nevermind. The only scenario where the CCW holder would be liable for those damages is if their use of force isn’t justified, so I’m still not sure how this helps anyone.
Well insurance companies might deny coverage for people with a documented past of mental illness or violent behavior, which is more due diligence than many states are apparently putting in.
I mean it’s fucked and the proper solution should of course be regulation and proper background checks should not be too much to expect, but if everything has to be a “free market” masquerade then that would still be better than nothing (though I agree not by very much).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That’s certainly what I’ve been told. The statistics look a little sketchy to me on that front, but I’m not a mathematician and insurance companies will surely do a better analysis than anyone on this thread.
The only sure thing is that insurance companies will try to make as much money off this as possible, especially if it becomes required by law to have.
That’s where competition is important. Get a bunch of insurers in the market and the profits they leech will be minimal. But health insurance is a fucking debacle over profits, so I definitely hear your concern.
Ask Floridians looking for flood or even just normal home insurance how competition is working for them.
The problem there is insuring housing isn’t financially viable because climate change has made it too costly to mass-build houses as often as they are destroyed. That’s not really similar to the gun violence marketplace.
The idea her is if folks can persuade insurance companies that they are stable and responsible enough, insurance for them will be cheap. Meanwhile folks with domestic violence records or violent felonies would be priced out of having a gun or at least have the ability to bear the financial burden if something goes wrong. This is by no means a great solution, but 2A absolutists have the supreme court and the law is essentially that reasonable regulation isn’t possible.
Until that changes, I’ll accept a market solution.
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.
These proposals would ultimately manifest in insurance for white peopel costing less and black people and hispanics costing more. All this does is price minorities out of gun rights. The whites will be fine, good thing they’re not the ones comitting the vast majority of gun terrorism . . . Oh wait I’ve just received some devastating statistics . . .
Insurance underwriters would surely base their insurance premiums off that very information. I think this may be a rare case of insurance actually being somewhat fair considering race.
Then again, Baltimore.
The overwhelming majority of gun deaths are sucide, organized crime also has a high share. The insurance premiums are not going to be based on whos more likely to do a mass shooting they’re gonna be based on every payout they prospectivly have to make. So people who will get the highest rates will be minorities and those seeking mental health treatment. So the best way to keep your premium low would be to be white and not seek mental health treatment. That’s not exactly behavior I would like financially incentivised.
I don’t know, based off the information you’re working with, we’re assuming that the gun insurers would be on the hook for life insurance claims?
That’s different than liability, which is what’s proposed here
wanna back that up with data?
Don’t be a sucker. If dogshit gun laws made minorities safer, America would be the safest country in the world by a massive margin.
Awesome. We’re going to apply it to cops too, right?
Right?
Did you read the article? Yes, it applies to police.
Yes, I quoted it in one of my other comments.
The law is not final yet, though. I’m sure there will be a wall of whine coming from the cops about how they’re so special and should be exempted. The real test will be if the legistlature capitulates or leaves them in there.
LOLLLLLLL if you think it’ll make it to a final vote without a law enforcement exemption being added.
deleted by creator
Some states require nurses to buy their own personal liability insurance, but cops get a pass. Does that seem right?
deleted by creator
They already have insurance: you as the taxpayer.
deleted by creator
You clearly said cops having liability insurance doesn’t make any sense and then doubled down by arguing that it’s because they have us the taxpayers instead.
If cops needed to get individual insurance and the ones that were reckless had to pay more or maybe even stop being cops because they can’t be insured, it would probably help.
Regardless, it comes off as if you are against it on top of belittling the above poster.
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.
Ahhh, the old “let’s make something a right that only the rich can afford.” For all the “eat the rich” rhetoric here, there seems to be a lot of desire to increase the class divide even more by limiting rights to how much money you have.
It’s already very difficult to nearly impossible to obtain a purchase and carry permit in the state since Maryland is “May issue” state and NOT a “Shall issue” state. This means you can be denied a permit at the whim of local law enforcement unless you have an “in” with whoever is in charge. This is purely performative theater to buy votes.
And the two groups that really should have liability insurance - drug gangs and law enforcement - will be completely unaffected by this requirement.
Just don’t bring your gun to your favorite walmart?..
You don’t have to bring the fucking thing around with you everywhere
You were never a boy scout were you? Ever heard of being prepared? Maybe the phrase “I’d rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it”? Bet the people in the Walmart shooting in Texas a few years ago wish they would have taken their gun into the Walmart.
“Being prepared” is running away. 100% of the time.
Those “good guys w/ a guy” stories are legit almost always an off-duty cop who knows how to handle the situation (and the gun)
You dweeb come-and-take-its don’t need it at a Walmart
So your advice to people in an active shooter situation is to always run? Not seek cover? Not stay low and observe the situation? Just run 100% of the time? I pray you don’t take your own advice.
Honest lol
It’s definitely odd seeing the crowd cheering for regulatory capture, that’s certain. Doubly infuriating because this kind of legislation will not solve problems, it’s virtue signaling to anti-gun donors and voters, that just pisses off everyone who has to live with it. How does insurance solve harm? It doesn’t, and I’d argue this is legally untested enough that a carrier can likely find ways to get out from paying.
There’s much better areas to start unraveling this issue, but they’re hard and don’t make quick headlines for clout:
- Expand the denied persons categories, including domestic violence, including cops
- Actually enforce sentencing for gun charges instead of pleading out, so ‘repeat offender’ laws actually work as designed
- Focus funding and diversion efforts at gang members who commit violence in communities, instead of broad, cosmetic centric bans
- Stop fetishizing guns as ‘manly’ or ‘powerful’ instead of just the deadly tools they are. Society shares blame here, but gun marketing absolutely took that an RAN with it
Focus funding and diversion efforts at gang members who commit violence in communities…
There it is lmao. Like gangs are the problem.
“It’s the black peoples fault”.
Half the American women murdered in their last decade were killed by their partner, but there’s no “funding and diversion efforts” for white guys who can’t control their emotions.
MD is Shall Issue now, thanks to Bruen. Still very hard to obtain a permit, as you require 16 hours of instruction, passing a live-fire exam, and paying about $200 in fees (on top of the $400 class).
That doesn’t sound that hard.
Sir, that is unlicensed speech. You’ll need to take 16 hours of a $400 class and pay a $200 fee for a license to speak that way.
It should be a required safety test like with driver’s licenses, a reasonable compromise that you can also add immediate failure states to and doesn’t add an undue time and cost burden to people who aren’t dumbasses, unlike a class.
Get a child safety question wrong?
Fail.
Say you have the right to shoot a fleeing burglar in the back?
Also fail.
you don’t have the right to shoot a burglar in the front. loss of property isn’t an excusable reason to shoot someone. fear of bodily harm or death for you or someone else is.
Jeez, it sure would be awkward for your argument if a home invasion carried an inherent threat, which is why most robberies occur when no one is home to be threatened.
jeez it sure would be awkward if your argument made any sense. let me put it in caps for you. INHERENT THREAT.
But after that you can use that speech to kill a room full of children or a fleeing partner right?
I’m just going to come out and say it: Fuck your gun “rights”. I absolutely support it being taken away from you. It’s just as immoral as the right to own slaves was.
You’re hiding behind the word “right” because you know the only way to defend permissive gun laws is pretending that domestic abusers having poorly secured AR-15s is up there with “bodily autonomy” or “freedom of beliefs”.
Would you be playing your little “only bad guys take away rights” games if people had the “right” to help themselves to your daughters body? To kill you on a whim because of your skin color?
After all, anything you call a “right” is inherently good and ethical and to be preserved at all costs.
But after that you can use that speech to kill a room full of children or a fleeing partner right?
Oh shit they made school shootings legal if you have a permit? Missed that update.
right" to help themselves to your daughters body? To kill you on a whim because of your skin color?
Your rights end where another’s begin, you are not entitled to another’s body or life, you are however entitled to the tools with which to defend yourself if someone does try to violate your rights to your body or life. In your scenario, or should I say “currently,” I actually have the right to shoot the rapist or racist murderer.
Oh shit they made school shootings legal if you have a permit? Missed that update
They may as well given the disgustingly low bar you set for gun owners.
The laws the pro-gun community holds up as ideal couldn’t prevent the sale of a gun to a teenager with the nickname “school shooter” and a history of animal abuse, death and rape threats, days before he did a school shooting.
If you’re going to staunchly oppose gun control, why not just come out and say that you support selling semi-automatic weapons to far-right extremists, deeply disturbed men in the throes of psychosis, people who hit their partners and people who can’t secure their firearms from children?
Your rights end where another’s begin, you are not entitled to another’s body or life
I think you mean that other people’s rights end where yours begin.
After all, you have no problem bankrolling the gun-lobby who in turn fund the Republicans that openly campaign on a platform of taking away the rights of women and minorities.
Does a child have a right to safety and education? Only at the discretion of whatever insane fuckstick you’ve armed today because your guns are more important that someone else’s children.
I actually have the right to shoot the rapist or racist murderer.
And those rapists and murderers have the right to own guns because you insisted on it. Should we look at their statistics to see how that works out for everyone?
Oh what a shocking plot twist, it works out great for your as you sit there delivering on fuck all of your promises and it works out great for the rapists and racists.
Your right come at the expense of others and you’re not even good at hiding it.
They may as well given the disgustingly low bar you set for gun owners.
The laws the pro-gun community holds up as ideal couldn’t prevent the sale of a gun to a teenager with the nickname “school shooter” and a history of animal abuse, death and rape threats, days before he did a school shooting.
Translation: “I don’t know a damn thing about how to buy a gun in the US and I’m probably british.”
I think you mean that other people’s rights end where yours begin.
If you’re having difficulty parsing the statement it means that you don’t have the right to deprive another of their rights. I know it can be confusing for people like you who don’t like rights, so I understand.
After all, you have no problem bankrolling the gun-lobby
Well find me a gun company that …isn’t a gun company? I guess? What are your standards here lmao? Gotta buy them from the people who sell em, you ever buy weed in the US pre-'10? If yes, you feel bad about supporting the Sinaloa Cartel Lobby? Know what? I blame you, they wouldn’t have to lobby if people weren’t always trying to ban them.
Does a child have a right to safety and education?
Yes.
Only at the discretion of whatever insane fuckstick you’ve armed today because your guns are more important that someone else’s children.
Oh shit they made school shootings legal if you have a permit? Missed that update
And those rapists and murderers have the right to own guns because you insisted on it.
Well, not if they are a prohibited purchaser. And I’d rather their victims be able to have them too than just get raped and murdered at knifepoint instead. “You can run from knife,” ahh shaddup you better be fast then with that ableist take, and don’t try to pretend you weren’t about to type that shit either y’all are too predictable.
Should we look at their statistics to see how that works out for everyone?
Yes. According to John Lott, Gary Kleck, and the CDC, the estimate for defensive gun use in the 90s was somewhere between 500,000 and 3,000,000 times per year. The study in question was survey based, and included “defensive display,” which is a defense in which simply making the attacker aware of the presence of a firearm is enough to scare them off. Due to this, and the wide gap between the high/low end, the veracity of this study has been debated. However, according to a recent Harvard study done to discredit that “myth of the good guy with a gun,” they say a “more realistic estimate” of defensive gun use which does NOT include defensive display and is based solely off verifiable police reports is 100,000 per year.
Well, that takes care of the DGU, what about the deaths? Surely more than 100k/yr! Let’s see here, our murder rate yearly according to the FBI is about 15,000/yr.… Hol’ up, 15,000 homicides/yr? Shit, that is MUCH less than 100,000 dgu/yr. Well alright alright I know what’ll get those self defenders! The total gun death rate including homicides, suicides, and accidents! Surely there’s 1,000,000/yr! In 2021, there were a total of 48,830 firearm deaths. Hmm well shit. Turns out that doesn’t do it either, since 48,830<100,000. Damn, I guess guns are used in defense more than deaths. Who’da thunk it?
Oh what a shocking plot twist, it works out great for your as you sit there delivering on fuck all of your promises and it works out great for the rapists and racists.
I’ll twist your twister with the 100,000 people it DID work out great for every year, that’s 51,170 more twists! Get twisted on, go twist yourself.
Your right come at the expense of others
Your Mama comes at the expense of others, and it isn’t even that expensive.
Removed by mod
“allows you to run your mouth like a rabid retarded monkey trying to hump a door knob into submission.”
Attacking other users with (admittedly) highly creative ableist slurs is not allowed. Keep it civil.
Oh damn you have to show basic competence with a deadly weapon before you’re allowed to take it home and cuddle it? What an authoritarian hellscape.
If “performative theatre” upsets you, then the pro-gun side is not for you.
They crow about “keeping their family safe” but droves of children are blowing their brains out with their dads guns or dying screaming on their classroom floor.
They promise all the gun violence will be worth it because they’ll keep us safe from tyranny but they enthusiastically vote for authoritarian, far-right candidates running on a platform of “we will take away the rights of women and minorities”.
They promise they’re “responsible gun owners”, then staunchly oppose any measure that makes that responsibility a requirement, not a completely voluntary pinkie promise.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
But it’s big, black, and scary!!
>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?
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.
Ah yes, that’s why a guy living in the middle of Dallas needs an AR-15. Defense against bears and mountain lions.
didnt realize people only lived in dallas, that’s crazy.
AR-15s are legal in Dallas despite the lack of bears and mountain lions. Which was your reasoning for legal guns.
this article is about a law in maryland
Ah yes, Baltimore is famous for bears and mountain lions. We definitely need guns there.
I’ve seen Disney cartoons. Animals are cute, cuddly, and help you get dressed
you make a good point.
If you think that’s bad, I had to get a $1,000,000 umbrella coverage policy for our swimming pool to cover liability in case someone gets injured. I don’t think it’s unreasonable at all
SCOTUS would say that the distinction is that we don’t have a fundamental right under the Constitution to have a swimming pool on our property. But we do have a fundamental right to possess firearms.
As established in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, such as self-defense. Any state law impacting this right would be subject to judicial scrutiny and likely strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny is applied when a law impacts a fundamental right or involves a suspect classification. Such laws must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
While the right to bear arms is protected, the Supreme Court acknowledges that this right is not absolute and can be subject to regulations. Restrictions such as background checks and prohibitions for certain individuals (like felons or the mentally ill) have been upheld.
However there is legal precedent that excessive economic barriers to exercising a fundamental right can be problematic. For instance, in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections (1966), the Court struck down a poll tax as it constituted a barrier to the fundamental right to vote.
Given these principles, a mandatory $300,000 insurance policy could be seen as a substantial economic barrier to exercising the right to bear arms. The Court would likely assess whether the law is justifiable under strict scrutiny. If the state argues that the law serves public safety, the Court would consider whether it’s narrowly tailored to that interest.
If the requirement disproportionately affects lower-income individuals, the Court might view it as an undue burden on the fundamental right to bear arms, similar to how poll taxes were viewed as barriers to voting rights.
All of this is very stupid, and does not happen in normal liberal democracies
Ultimately we need to thank the Roberts Court for teaching Americans that previously established rulings can be overturned, a la Roe
I’m thinking when the pendulum swings back and liberals control the court, we’ll take a closer look at the part of the 2nd amendment that says ‘we’ll regulated’.
Even if that potential court swing does happen, we will still be keeping the guns. Americans have 400 million or more of them already, in private hands, mostly unregistered.
I would personally never give up that right, regardless of the law. It’s a fundamental human right to self defense.
Number 1 cause of death for children is gunshot. Gotta do something about that even if it does mean you can’t have a tomahak missile to protect you from burglary.
That’s a very misleading fake statistic and if you look at the total number of children in the USA who are killed OR injured by firearms annually, it amounts to a tiny fraction of the overall population, and 99.9999% of children are not killed or injured by any firearm.
So I reject your tired “but think of the children” excuse to put any limits on the freedom of American citizens.
Anything that doesn’t confirm your bias is a misleading fake statistic. Also lol at the freedom thing because the guns are literally the excuse the government has used to create a massive police state where everything from middle schools to the post office has its own police force authorized to kill or arrest you and send you to do slave labor in the prison system.
A bit about me for context: I’m Canadian, I have an interest in guns. I do not own any guns. I can imagine myself owning a gun, but don’t want one right now. I know a bit about guns, but not a lot. eg Rim fire vs center fire, and that there isn’t anything specific that makes a rifle an assault rifle. I support gun regulation but think Canada’s recent changes go too far (it’s now impossible for a normal citizen to legally obtain a handgun in Canada).
My two cents on this bill:
-
Every responsible gun owner ought to have liability insurance that covers their firearms regardless of whether or not it’s required.
-
Objections to such requirements based on the cost of insurance could be overcome in a few ways. Two that occur to me off the top of my head:
a. Individual insurance could be not necessary if the citizen is a member of a well regulated militia (but the state could define what qualifies as a well regulated militia, maybe: shared liability, annual training)
b. The state could offer tax payer funded insurance, for gun owners that agree to certain conditions e.g. gun use, storage (and inspections)
I look forward to the comments.
it’s now impossible for a normal citizen to legally obtain a handgun in Canada
Very good, be grateful you live in a modern and civilized place, go out and do things that normal citizens do then. Get a hobby. You don’t need to own or use deadly weapons nor be part of a ‘well regulated militia’, no one does.
Hey I’m not sure this was your intention but the way you passed your response feels like you’re criticizing me.
It makes it hard to respond without seeming like I’m on the defensive. But for example, I am grateful to live in a country with more sane gun laws than the USA. I do things normaltm citizens do. I also happen to know normaltm people that own guns. How do I know them? By participating in hobbies (with them). Like yeah I agree not many people need to own guns but a lot do, and if you want to improve the gun situation in the USA there are some legal and political realities you’ll have to work within.
-
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?
Not the congregation, but perhaps the clergy should carry insurance. Especially if they’re part of a church that has a history of sexual assault in their organization
I would suggest that you look into church sex abuse cases. It’s not always the clergy that’s committing abuse. Quite often it’s members, and the clergy is covering it up because of the priest-penitent privilege (edit: and to protect the reputation of the church; this has been true with the Mormon
cultchurch, JWs, Southern Baptist Convention members, and many, many other churches). (Which, BTW, only means that they their testimony can’t be used in an investigation or trial without the permission of the penitent. It does not legally bar them from alerting the police that abuse has occurred.)The confessional is basically old school therapy - it needs to be confidential, because the idea is that the priest can then influence things that people never want to see the light of day.
For example, a Catholic priest could say that the penance for their actions is to turn themselves in, and they could take that opportunity to confront the person with the reality of what this is like for the victim.
You can argue that at some point, the future harm to others overrides that oath to the privacy of that action, but that’s a very complicated ethics question.
The priest could, in any situation, break that oath and be defrocked at worst… But they could also say “I’m here to redeem this person” or “I made an oath and I can’t break it”, and work them towards coming forward themselves. They could also bend it, and without revealing anything, approach and try to support the victim so they feel safe coming forward
The right answer is going to be nuanced and situational, and I’m sure many have failed ethically, but it’s not a simple question
If a penitent is unwilling to accept the consequences of their actions, then are they truly penitent? AA tells people that part of their journey to sobriety requires making amends for what they did; why is a child rapist being let off more easily than a drunk?
If I were clergy, I would tell a penitent that there was no forgiveness in this life or the next until they had confessed to police and pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. In my reading of the bible, this is not a conflict; James 2:18 says, “But someone will say, ‘You have faith, and I have works.’ Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”. Real faith, and real repentance, requires an outward manifestation, although the manifestation is not proof by itself of faith. So a penitent that is actually penitent–and thus ready to accept the forgiveness of their god–must be willing to accept the secular consequences of their actions.
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.
This is a lot like insuring a vehicle. So they shouldn’t make it a flat insurance, which would be regressive, but tailor it to the capacity, ammunition type, and firing rate of the weapon.
That’s what would make it a progressive fee - a basic Saturday Night Special or hunting rifle would be cheap for any poor person to own, whereas a military style machine gun would be cost-prohibitive for all but the wealthiest.
They could even have extra discounts based on user certification and tested skill levels, with surcharges based on discharge accidents and situations where the gun was recorded being improperly brandished or carried.
Why should all but the wealthiest be allowed to own an assault rifle? I think that’s a recipe for disaster.
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.
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.
Bro there’s so many tools that can be used to kill people. Can’t legislate all of them out of reach of everyone.
The core issue doesn’t lie with what tool is used.
Guns aren’t tools. People with guns are the tools.
You’re an idiot if you think a gun isn’t a tool.
You’re an idiot. Period.
A gun or an assault rifle is specifically designed to harm and kill people. At a distance no less. A sword? Maybe. But it’s not nearly as deadly and efficient, so it could be insured at a lower rate.
Go live in whatever dystopian hell hole you want. Insurance is not the answer. Insurance is a fucking scam, propped up by corporate lobbyists.
But it’s not like insurance is going to help. If you buy a gun that gets used in a shooting, it’s still used in a shooting. The only difference is that someone might get money, but it doesn’t actually solve any problem.
What it does do is place a regressive tax on gun ownership.
The insurance should encourage responsible gun ownership. Insurance companies can easily adjust premiums based on training/licensing and premiums would be higher or lower depending on their risk calculation for the given type of weapon. Insurance can place extra requirements on storage and transport that might go well beyond the scope of what’s allowed by law.
A cheap insurance plan would likely have more restrictions than an expensive one, plus your premiums would skyrocket after an incident, further encouraging responsible behavior
There’s literally FUCKING LAWS requiring you to be responsible.
You’re a fucking idiot if you think INSURANCE PREMIUMS are the solution to violence.
Like anybody who has murder in their heart will think twice because of an extra fee tacked on.
Insurance can have additional requirements beyond the law. For example my homeowner’s insurance does not allow trampolines on the property. There’s no law against trampolines but my homeowner’s insurance made the determination that a trampoline is too big of a risk for them.
This is why I said:
Insurance can place extra requirements…that might go well beyond the scope of what’s required by law.
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.
Something needs to be done but wow this feels like the worst way to go.
Oh you mean the way that let’s the monied ruling class stay armed while all the rest of us lowly poors can’t be. Surely that genius plan won’t ever backfire.
Surely that genius plan won’t ever backfire.
And the current gun laws haven’t backfired? The country is a fucking mess and none of the pro-gun promises have come true.
Authoritarians have never been more powerful and the guns have done nothing to stop them. The most effective way to keep your family safe is to just move to a wealthy country that doesn’t routinely arm domestic abusers, extremists and the deeply mentally ill with the weapons they need to quickly and efficiently kill anyone they want.
You’re not a champion of peoples rights, you’re a simp for the gun lobby with delusions of grandeur.
There’s a difference between bureaucratic bullshittery and willfully making things worse for one specific class.
And what is that difference?
