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.
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.
Videos from this channel, "What is politics?" exactly explain that those governments that are calling themselves left, where right wing rich politicians pretending to be left wing. And leftist at the time, called them out on it multiple times. But it just ended with them in jail. Every dictatorship is right wing by definition. Having an excuse that you will be a nice king, doesn't make a you a leftist. The excuse of those regimes was that they will only be there for a while, after which they will disolve the state completely. That autoritarianism is just temporary. Of course, that day never came and instead they focused on propaganda that redifined what being left is, which is very common in history.
The rights you enjoy are fleeting without enforcement mechanisms.
I'm not right wing. I'm a socialist.
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"
You guys have your priorities fucked up.the left should say "don't give a shit about guns, we need universal healthcare". The right can't put a fucking thought together by themselves, let's stop assuming all right-wingers are rich, most trump voters are trailer park trash
Practically all gun deaths are from suicides and organized crime.
It's amazing that people believe the DNC when they say that 10 round mag limits and pistol grip bans are the answer, when they could just shift gears and give us what everyone wants. Single payer healthcare, better schools and cheaper/free college, higher pay so people don't resort to crime to make ends meet...
But those problems are harder to solve, so let's wipe our ass with the Bill of Rights instead and convince people to cheer us on while we do it.
I'm all for banning guns. Come from a country and live in another country where normal people can't buy a firearm. Still this sounds like a small step in the right direction
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.
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.
Yeah. I'm a goon who forgot how insurance works.
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.
I'm fine with banning everyone. This bill is a bit different, think about car insurance hasn't been mandatory and someone is proposing to make it so. Everyone screams it's not fair, the poor are not allowed to drive anymore. I can sympathize in principle, but hey you live in the us
You are taking existing laws for granted. Car insurance has the same problem. Rich people drive cars, poor people don't. Then you defund public transport and give more power to the rich over the working class. In few years, people would take gun insurance for granted. It will be normal for rich people to own the guns are poor people to be defenseless. Just think about Black Panter movement and what this bill would mean if they were still around today.
Genuinely ignorant on the topic, not from the us.. Wouldn't they just buy guns from the black market (no pun intended) and skip insurance altogether? In fact, isn't that what the BP were probably doing, using unregistered illegal firearms?
But that is the point, one group can own them legally, while others can't. Black Panters didn't go a out of their way to break the law. If they can do it legally, they would. They didn't want to give cops any reasons to arrest them. A lot of working class movements are perfectly legal, it is the ruling class that tries to think of excuses to either discredit them or simply arrest them or kill them. in the end it is the state that stopped Black Panters and frame them as some violent group. Their focus was on education., community run daycares and etc. They were attacked by white nationalists so they would legally arm themselves and patrol their areas. This was the only time that NRA supported gun control and Mulford Act was passed. It was never about right to have guns, no one really believes that. It is about the right for the powerful to have weapons to protect from the working class, and not the other way around.
Yeah sorry as I said i don't know much on the BP topic and it sounds that the little I know is stereotypes from reading your comments
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
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.
I think you are the first person in this thread to understand that $300k is the policy amount, not the cost...
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?
You're Right. The Second Amendment is only a right for rich white people. Just like the 4th and 5th Amendments.
I know right, how are poor people going to put food on the table if they are not allowed to carry a weapon in public?
In your opinion, are poor people inferior to rich people as to whether they have the right to protest or protect their families? Do you cheer when a poor person's child dies?
I'm sorry, I'm just gonna block your alt-right ass now. I don't talk to monsters and idiots.
The subtext was no one needs a fucking gun and poor people should spend the little money they have on something a bit higher in the food/shelter priorities list.
If your idea of protesting involves carrying a gun. You are going to get shot soon and the pigs will get away with self-defence, not very smart.
If your idea of protecting your family involves a gun, I'm pretty sure in the US it's statistically easier for your kids to shoot themselves with your gun so you are not really protecting them.
I don't cheer when a poor person child dies, how could you imply that. Are we talking guns or insulin here? Are guns keeping people alive?
Not alt right sorry, been on the left for a few decades, before it became trendy on lemmy. It's just that I can't stand pro gun idiots I'm general, and it really saddens me when they are on the left, like the nra didn't already have enough idiots supporters