Maryland bill would force gun owners to get $300K liability insurance to wear or carry
Maryland bill would force gun owners to get $300K liability insurance to wear or carry
As the bill is currently written, local and state law enforcement officers are not exempt from the insurance requirement.
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
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.
thinking they need a gun on them at all times
thinking they’re in danger without a gun
Yes, that’s what was said
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.
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.
Don’t some states have laws about profitability caps on insurance?
There were stories of some insurance companies refunding policy holders during COVID due to excess profits.
Now think about any of the school shootings and the amount of guns they used. Do you see a kid buying some guns AND having to have an insurance?
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.
Permanently Deleted
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.
Pay to carry seems pretty not ok to me.
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.
Yeah but if we can't drive around shooting our guns as a protected freedom of expression, are we really free?
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.
The act of carrying is inherently more dangerous than not. That is an indisputable fact that you don't even need statistics to know. I am infinitely more likely to die by a firearm if it exists in the first place rather than not.
People living with handgun owners died by homicide at twice the rate of their neighbors in gun-free homes. That difference was driven largely by homicides at home, which were three times more common among people living with handgun owners.
I claim you're ignorant and your link is not anything to do with being out conceal carrying. Your argument also is of "guns not existing" rather than one of "people wanting to legally carry needing to pay."
They are not the same thing.
I provided a link to evidence illustrating my point that the presence of a gun presents a greater risk of dying to a firearm. The study is about a different situation, but both deal with the presence of firearms. I would welcome evidence to the contrary rather than insults because I am engaging you here in good faith.
I say adding a gun to any situation increases the chances of a gun being used simply because it is present. More guns in more places = more opportunities for them to be used. I think that is simple logic, and again I welcome you to refute it.
This is something that requires people who carry weapons in public to be capable of providing restitution to anyone harmed by their actions. I can't see a massive harm in it other than disproportionately affecting the poor.
Obviously, if no guns exist, no guns can be used. That isn't even worth you bringing up. But since they do exist and are present, this is just a silly money grab and/or a way to restrict and even further incarcerate the poor half of the country. Making someone pay money to be allowed to carry around anything is just asinine. What next? Shall we charge you a fee for your propane bottle because you can make it explode? Your pencil because you can stab someone with it? Charge extra if you live above the 2nd story because you could push someone to their death?
There are literally millions of people who conceal carry every day. The ones who would pay insurance or simply stop carrying aren't the ones hurting people. The "insurance" would just be for them. It wouldn't be for the people you want to worry about.
I'm not saying if there were no guns, but fewer, and more tightly regulated. I think this particular law is not a solution by any means to be clear, but at least it's something. You make the same points here that I see against gun control and regulation more broadly, so I'm speaking to that as well.
I mean the difference between a gun and that stuff that a gun is designed to kill things -- humans. It's not exactly comparable to a pencil or even propane which is comparatively very safe. The US has an extremely high per capita rate of firearm violence, even ignoring suicides which are a huge problem. We don't have a propane problem
I am hopeful laws that have a bigger, more positive effect can be passed
I'm saying that creating a law or regulation that doesn't in any way reduce the amount of guns in a violent or potentially violent person's hands doesn't do anything at all.
How many people who aren't already felons and not allowed to have so much as a knife on them anyhow and are going to pay an insurance fee to carry, and be someone to worry about needlessly shooting someone while away from their home while they're carrying do you think there are? Almost all the shootings that aren't self defense and are outside of homes is done by people who already weren't even allowed to carry to begin with. All the big mass shootings never seem like they're done on a whim, so those people obviously wouldn't be deterred by an insurance requirement at all.
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?
Well then everyone who doesn't carry should be paying the insurance by your logic.