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.

  • Brcht@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • olivebranch@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Great, if my child is shot dead in school by some rich kid, at least I get 300k to pay for child funeral. /s

      • Brcht@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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

        • olivebranch@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.