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.
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 why we can constantly mock the tacti-cool warriors for thinking they need a gun on them at all times.
That’s doesn’t make sense. We mock them for thinking they’re in danger without a gun. Insurance is for the danger they create by carrying a gun.
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?
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.
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.
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.
But it’s pay to drive, right? I suppose driving isn’t mentioned in the bill of rights, but I’d argue neither is the individual right to wield a firearm.
You pay for car accidents and they don’t pay out for intentional stuff. You don’t really hear much about accidental shootings from people while they’re out carrying. The act of carrying isn’t dangerous.
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.
There is a definable risk to life and property associated with carrying. And the cost of that risk should be born by those perpetuating it. I hear carrying supposedly makes things safer, so presuming the actuarial tables agree that cost should be totally nominal in which case why not?
Awesome. We’re going to apply it to cops too, right?
Right?
What you’re saying doesn’t make any sense at all.
Cops are extremely difficult to sue directly. Your city/town pays for the settlement. They already have insurance: you as the taxpayer.
This kind of reaction-driven response does nothing to help countering police misconduct or information around it but whatever’s good for the upvotes I guess.
Edit: And yeah, the bill seems to target some police on this matter, but I really, really doubt it’s going to do much about issues related to police brutality.
Some states require nurses to buy their own personal liability insurance, but cops get a pass. Does that seem right?
What they’re saying does make sense, it would just have to come with a few additional changes. Like making law enforcement officers easier to sue directly. Colorado has already revoked qualified immunity. It seems like you are being overly pedantic. No single step will fix the problem but the comment you are replying to is a step in a direction to address the issue
What I’m saying makes perfect sense.
Police misconduct is so rampant specifically because the taxpayer picks up the tab. Cops themselves can weasel out of being responsible for just about anything because they’re shielded by their department, or city, or state, or whatever. But if we held them personally accountable – financially, in this case – that’d stop that bullshit quick smart and in a hurry. Doctors have to carry insurance personally. So do truck drivers. You want to know why? Because those jobs hold the potential for catastrophically fucking up, with consequences very likely to affect other people. Why should cops be any different?
At the very least this should apply to all police who are not currently clocked in, in uniform, and on duty. Out here in the real world they have to play by the same rules as the rest of us.
Ha. Actually, from TFA:
As the bill is currently written, local and state law enforcement officers are not exempt from the insurance requirement.
So guess who else agrees with me.
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
Sure, here you go, exactly the kinds and sources and data insurers are going to look at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7226a9.htm
Seems to imply the biggest risks for insuring are Black men. White men come in even lower than Black women. I’m sure actuaries will pull more than just this graph but it’s pretty indicative of how it will shake out. Unless of course you have some sources you’d like to cite that imply otherwise.
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 . . .
I guess i misunderstood this line… the first part sure. i guess. there are poor white people too. but ok. the second part sounds like you’re being sarcastic about the first part… which is contradicted by the numbers you posted… so… i guess im still confused as to your stance.
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.
Then fucking come up with gun control that doesn’t focus on the poor.
The Left says “we should do this because it’s better for everyone”. The Right says “Yeah, but ONLY do it to the poor! Thank you”
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
It probably makes it more difficult for MOST people. I don’t know what the stats are on people who want to carry a firearm in public are, income-wise… but I feel like that’s an impossible amount of money for most of them to spend on something like carrying a gun.
I’m not sure about this legislation either, really, but they’re not being asked to spend $300,000, just to be able to get an insurance policy for that amount.
Impossible anount! How are they going to survive if they vantage carry a deadly weapons in public?
Then why not ban everybody? Why do rich people always get an exception? Nobody here is saying banning guns is a bad idea, we are saying that it is exactly right wing point of view that only passes a law that affects the poor. Now the rich republicans that use the anger of rural working class for their own benefit, don’t have to be worried of that armed working class rebelling against them, when they fuck them over. Now they the rich can both keep the guns, get more power over poor and go and lie to rural working class that it is the left that took away their guns, and say nothing about how they were fine with it, because it doesn’t affect them.
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.
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?
Never understood why you have to have insurance to operate vehicles, but not have insurance for weapons, or dogs for that matter.
Because owning of weapons is a constitutional right with very limited means to restrict your rights too.
owning/operating a vehicle is simply a privilege that is easily revoked for any number of reasons, and can have many barriers between you and having it.
Because the constitution was written 200 years ago, and is not fit for the modern day.
“Well regulated” does not mean now what it meant back then. In the context of the constitutional times “regulated” meant trained, supplied, and such shape ready to fight instead of legislated or controlled by the government.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/
SCotUS has ruled that your relationship with a militia, well-regulated or otherwise, is irrelevant to your right to bear arms
edit: clarity
It’s wild that “militia” is still considered relevant.
Like, are we really still in a time when your town of 100 settlers might get attacked by Native Americans from the West and the British from the East?
We gonna ring the bell and dole out muskets to every able-bodied man and boy in the village?
Muskets — and ammo, and gunpowder — from the armory, since it was impractical and dangerous to keep that stuff at home?
And lest we forget, these MFers passed ten amendments right off the bat. They thought we’d be ready to change this shit on the fly as the world evolved.
People say they meant for amendments to be difficult to pass. But they really had no idea what the right calibration would be. It was a new thing! And they had just managed to get unanimous buy-in to start the thing. How hard could a 3/4 vote be?
having a constitutional right to carry a weapon does not shield you from responsibility if you misuse that weapon in a way that violates my rights.
Anything can be a weapon with enough effort and intent. Even your teeth. You want to start restricting everything that could possibly be a weapon?
The current interpretation of the 2nd only dates back to the 20th century. It was not interpreted at all the same way in the 18th and 19 centuries and in fact, in contrast to today, was scarcely even thought about. It just wasn’t really an issue in anything like the way it is now and it was entirely uncontroversial that municipalities could outlaw the carrying of firearms within city limits. It was actually pretty common in frontier towns especially.
One is a right that shall not be infringed, and the other one is a state-regulated privilege (at least for operating the machine on public roads).
Very simple to understand actually. You can’t put paywalls in front of rights, so this will be dunked right down the shitter if it passes, by the courts.
historically the courts have allowed many restrictions to the second amendment, its only modern revisionism thats reinterpreted “well regulated militia” as “literally anyone except felons” and “the right to bear arms” as “gun companies have a right to unrestricted gun sales”
The irony that the establishment considers the boom-boom death sticks as a “right” and the quite-literally-required car for modern society is a “privilege.”
You should need to have insurance for your stupid yee-yee adventures to shoot the melanin-enriched customers at a Walmart…
What a childish response. Your opinion is garbage.
Rights are something that nobody should ever agree to give up - especially a critical right that enables effective self-defense to the common citizen.
Fortunately there’s nothing you can do about it, as that right at least is well protected by law and the courts.
That’s just the current reading of the 2nd though. The court, as Dobbs clearly shows, can easily reverse precedent. What’s interesting is that the conservative side of the SCOTUS is currently so wedded to originalism and “historical practice,” which puts them in a bit of a bind since the 2nd as an absolute right to bear arms in self-defense is purely a 20th century doctrine with little or no real antecedents in the 18th and 19th centuries. I expect they’ll find a way around it regardless, thus further lowering their legitimacy in the eyes of the American people.
