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
[-] kromem@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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.

[-] olivebranch@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 months ago

@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.

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

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?

[-] olivebranch@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] kromem@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

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?

[-] olivebranch@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] kromem@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] Tbird83ii@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 months ago

I think you are the first person in this thread to understand that $300k is the policy amount, not the cost...

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

politics

18081 readers
1762 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