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.

  • SkippingRelax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    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

    • olivebranch@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • SkippingRelax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        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?

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

          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.

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

            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