1086
submitted 5 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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"

[-] Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website 5 points 5 months ago

as “literally anyone except felons”

Oh don't worry, they're revising that part too. They want no limits whatsoever. They want felons to have guns.

[-] Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 5 months ago

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..

[-] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 months ago

You can still buy, own, and shoot it. You just need to pay insurance (a very small one at that) to carry it around outside w/ you.

The LW motto should be "your opinion is garbage" because there is clearly no sane argument to be made against this law

[-] TheSanSabaSongbird 1 points 5 months ago

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.

this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
1086 points (97.8% liked)

politics

18081 readers
1626 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS