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.
Seems fair. If the risk is low, cost will be low. Let the free market decide, right?
How can you say it’s free market if it’s literally mandatory? Call it tax, but it won’t even be paid to the budget. Instead some private insurance companies would benefit from that. Yay legislators?
Free market pricing. Requiring someone to be indemnified when they are taking on risk greater than they could ever hope to repay if something goes wrong seems perfectly reasonable to me.
It will be low. Super low. $300k is pocket change when the incidence for gun carriers to use them is extremely low. It’s why we can constantly mock the tacti-cool warriors for thinking they need a gun on them at all times. Plus, the insurance company has way more flexibility in proving their client was not at fault in the incident compared to the shenanigans they have to pull now for car wrecks.
It’s hard to imagine a reasonable objection, then. I don’t trust insurance companies very much, but if there’s one thing they do well, it’s associating risk with cost.
It’s why we can constantly mock the tacti-cool warriors for thinking they need a gun on them at all times.
That’s doesn’t make sense. We mock them for thinking they’re in danger without a gun. Insurance is for the danger they create by carrying a gun.
thinking they need a gun on them at all times
thinking they’re in danger without a gun
Yes, that’s what was said
Its cheap because theres almost no risk. Tiger attack insurance is very cheap in the US too.
So whats the point? Insurance cant possibly solve any actual problems associated with gun violence.
Well insurance companies might deny coverage for people with a documented past of mental illness or violent behavior, which is more due diligence than many states are apparently putting in.
I mean it’s fucked and the proper solution should of course be regulation and proper background checks should not be too much to expect, but if everything has to be a “free market” masquerade then that would still be better than nothing (though I agree not by very much).
That’s still not going to stop any crimes. They still have the right to buy it, if they can pass the background check. If they want to commit a crime with it, the fact that it’s illegal to do so without insurance means nothing and prevents nothing.
Yeah, that’s the typical “but murder is already illegal!” pro-gun argument. I don’t think insurance policies are a good solution, but if it at least prevents the “mostly law-abiding citizen with anger issues who will use a gun against someone if given an excuse, but is too much of a pussy to carry one around illegally” from getting a gun, then that’s better than nothing.
You still don’t seem to understand that this would not prevent anyone from getting a gun. It would not, read up on the details.
I can read. My point is that lots of people buy a gun specifically to carry it in public. If they know they are uninsurable and won’t be able to carry it without getting into legal trouble (assuming there is a dissuasive penalty for illegally carrying… which is doubtful), they might not get a gun.
Sure, you can make up a lot a scenarios where this law is completely ineffective but you also can’t pretend that it necessarily won’t have any effect.
I would bet that tiger attack insurance for someone who brings a tiger with then in public would be astronomical.
The point is to put the burden of cost where it actually belongs. Instead of society footing the bill, now gun owners will pay into an insurance system that will cover costs in the event of damage.
Ok, I’ll try a better analogy. Why not require fist-punching insurance for anyone who wants to take their hands out in public?
Personal liability insurance exists. It’s often included in home or renter’s insurance. If someone knows they’re likely to end up in a lawsuit because they love punching people, it would behoove them to get that.
But the damage that can be done by a pair of fists is often a low enough dollar number (and jail time) that it can reasonably be paid by the person owning them. A broken orbital socket is a hell of a lot cheaper than, say, three people’s lives. There’s also unlikely to be collateral damage with fists, since they can only travel so far. Most people can’t pay for the damages in a shooting event, and right now that cost is instead being covered by taxpayers.
Insurance isn’t for the small things, like a broken window or punching someone. It’s for very expensive, sometimes catastrophic damage.
Now think about any of the school shootings and the amount of guns they used. Do you see a kid buying some guns AND having to have an insurance?
That’s certainly what I’ve been told. The statistics look a little sketchy to me on that front, but I’m not a mathematician and insurance companies will surely do a better analysis than anyone on this thread.
The only sure thing is that insurance companies will try to make as much money off this as possible, especially if it becomes required by law to have.
Don’t some states have laws about profitability caps on insurance?
There were stories of some insurance companies refunding policy holders during COVID due to excess profits.
That’s where competition is important. Get a bunch of insurers in the market and the profits they leech will be minimal. But health insurance is a fucking debacle over profits, so I definitely hear your concern.
Ask Floridians looking for flood or even just normal home insurance how competition is working for them.
The problem there is insuring housing isn’t financially viable because climate change has made it too costly to mass-build houses as often as they are destroyed. That’s not really similar to the gun violence marketplace.
The idea her is if folks can persuade insurance companies that they are stable and responsible enough, insurance for them will be cheap. Meanwhile folks with domestic violence records or violent felonies would be priced out of having a gun or at least have the ability to bear the financial burden if something goes wrong. This is by no means a great solution, but 2A absolutists have the supreme court and the law is essentially that reasonable regulation isn’t possible.
Until that changes, I’ll accept a market solution.
Well the liability aspect does include some risk.
It also depends if it’s on the weapon or person.
Specifically if the gun insured is used in a crime or to cause see harm. It doesn’t have to be the most extreme scenario.
If it’s per gun, that could easily be hundreds or thousands per month per gun hoarder.
Pay to carry seems pretty not ok to me.
But it’s pay to drive, right? I suppose driving isn’t mentioned in the bill of rights, but I’d argue neither is the individual right to wield a firearm.
You pay for car accidents and they don’t pay out for intentional stuff. You don’t really hear much about accidental shootings from people while they’re out carrying. The act of carrying isn’t dangerous.
The act of carrying is inherently more dangerous than not. That is an indisputable fact that you don’t even need statistics to know. I am infinitely more likely to die by a firearm if it exists in the first place rather than not.
People living with handgun owners died by homicide at twice the rate of their neighbors in gun-free homes. That difference was driven largely by homicides at home, which were three times more common among people living with handgun owners.
I claim you’re ignorant and your link is not anything to do with being out conceal carrying. Your argument also is of “guns not existing” rather than one of “people wanting to legally carry needing to pay.”
They are not the same thing.
I provided a link to evidence illustrating my point that the presence of a gun presents a greater risk of dying to a firearm. The study is about a different situation, but both deal with the presence of firearms. I would welcome evidence to the contrary rather than insults because I am engaging you here in good faith.
I say adding a gun to any situation increases the chances of a gun being used simply because it is present. More guns in more places = more opportunities for them to be used. I think that is simple logic, and again I welcome you to refute it.
This is something that requires people who carry weapons in public to be capable of providing restitution to anyone harmed by their actions. I can’t see a massive harm in it other than disproportionately affecting the poor.
Obviously, if no guns exist, no guns can be used. That isn’t even worth you bringing up. But since they do exist and are present, this is just a silly money grab and/or a way to restrict and even further incarcerate the poor half of the country. Making someone pay money to be allowed to carry around anything is just asinine. What next? Shall we charge you a fee for your propane bottle because you can make it explode? Your pencil because you can stab someone with it? Charge extra if you live above the 2nd story because you could push someone to their death?
There are literally millions of people who conceal carry every day. The ones who would pay insurance or simply stop carrying aren’t the ones hurting people. The “insurance” would just be for them. It wouldn’t be for the people you want to worry about.
You are walking around with a deadly weapon. We test, register, and insure people who drive around with a deadly weapon.
Nothing about the 2A says you do not assume liability for exercising your right. ain fact, all of US case on this would say the opposite. You absolutely assume liability for both what you do with your weapons, and what you fail to do with your weapons.
Awesome. We’re going to apply it to cops too, right?
Right?
Did you read the article? Yes, it applies to police.
LOLLLLLLL if you think it’ll make it to a final vote without a law enforcement exemption being added.
Yes, I quoted it in one of my other comments.
The law is not final yet, though. I’m sure there will be a wall of whine coming from the cops about how they’re so special and should be exempted. The real test will be if the legistlature capitulates or leaves them in there.
Fuck reading
deleted by creator
What I’m saying makes perfect sense.
Police misconduct is so rampant specifically because the taxpayer picks up the tab. Cops themselves can weasel out of being responsible for just about anything because they’re shielded by their department, or city, or state, or whatever. But if we held them personally accountable – financially, in this case – that’d stop that bullshit quick smart and in a hurry. Doctors have to carry insurance personally. So do truck drivers. You want to know why? Because those jobs hold the potential for catastrophically fucking up, with consequences very likely to affect other people. Why should cops be any different?
At the very least this should apply to all police who are not currently clocked in, in uniform, and on duty. Out here in the real world they have to play by the same rules as the rest of us.
Ha. Actually, from TFA:
As the bill is currently written, local and state law enforcement officers are not exempt from the insurance requirement.
So guess who else agrees with me.
I agree with you overall, but I expect taxes will just go up by however much is required to cover the insurance for the officers, so we will continue to pay for their malfeasance.
Some states require nurses to buy their own personal liability insurance, but cops get a pass. Does that seem right?
deleted by creator
They already have insurance: you as the taxpayer.
deleted by creator
Are you being deliberately difficult?
You clearly said cops having liability insurance doesn’t make any sense and then doubled down by arguing that it’s because they have us the taxpayers instead.
If cops needed to get individual insurance and the ones that were reckless had to pay more or maybe even stop being cops because they can’t be insured, it would probably help.
Regardless, it comes off as if you are against it on top of belittling the above poster.
You think you’re making a clear point, but you aren’t.
deleted by creator
These proposals would ultimately manifest in insurance for white peopel costing less and black people and hispanics costing more. All this does is price minorities out of gun rights. The whites will be fine, good thing they’re not the ones comitting the vast majority of gun terrorism . . . Oh wait I’ve just received some devastating statistics . . .
Don’t be a sucker. If dogshit gun laws made minorities safer, America would be the safest country in the world by a massive margin.
Insurance underwriters would surely base their insurance premiums off that very information. I think this may be a rare case of insurance actually being somewhat fair considering race.
Then again, Baltimore.
wanna back that up with data?
Sure, here you go, exactly the kinds and sources and data insurers are going to look at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7226a9.htm
Seems to imply the biggest risks for insuring are Black men. White men come in even lower than Black women. I’m sure actuaries will pull more than just this graph but it’s pretty indicative of how it will shake out. Unless of course you have some sources you’d like to cite that imply otherwise.
Concern trolling, classic.
I see what they want to do: no sane insurance company will provide such contracts unless they either:
- make the customers pay exorbitant prices
- require background checks and do the control themselves
Any of those will of course disincentivize people from owning guns, which is a good thing, but it’s crazy that a state has to offload these controls to a private company because there is no political willingness to do it in the right way.
This solves nothing, except for the rich getting the sole prerogative to guns.
It’s okay, Billy McFucksHisSister was kinda outgunned by “the gubmint’s” F-35s already I don’t think his walmart glock was anything the rich ever feared.
I’d to ask what should then we do in case of a dictatorship, for example? Just lay down and fear the F-35s?
Yes, even if everyone has a wallmat glock we’d outgunned by a mile by let’s say the military, but also you can’t just bomb and kill the shit out of your labor and infrastructure — I mean, you can, also you can bomb and kill enough to get them to submit, but that is just not something you can just keep doing indefinetly. It is also very hard to maintain a economy going with a big insurrection going and there is were guns bring a point, they give you at least a figthing chance, way better than nothing.
I’d also like to point out the ad hominem of calling the hypotetical gun owner a “McFucksHisSister” it brings nothing of value to the conversation.
I also do not belive carrying a gun around is something needed -by almost anyone- but ownership is important.
Cope. Seethe.
No arguments: you cope.
Also important to note is that the military is not some faceless automaton that does whatever they’re told. It’s very hard to justify killing the family and townspeople and neighbours of the people that you send to commit the killing. If we get to a state where it isn’t hard, we’re already lost as a people.
I’d like to agree with you, but given the experiences and horrors carried out by the military in my country (not the USA) I just can’t. I guess I agree with your last sentence, and I really hope you guys (whoever is reading) do better than us.
Don’t know about the US, but in most places the military wouldn’t send you tonserve or even less fight to, say, Shithole, Alabama if you are from there. Of course you wouldn’t shoot your uncle or brother. They figured this out centuries ago, before firearms.
They are using the anti-abortion strategy of finding a fairly strong argument and trying to maximize the ability of blocking something based on it. This will likely also fail like most of those attempts did.
If you think that’s bad, I had to get a $1,000,000 umbrella coverage policy for our swimming pool to cover liability in case someone gets injured. I don’t think it’s unreasonable at all
SCOTUS would say that the distinction is that we don’t have a fundamental right under the Constitution to have a swimming pool on our property. But we do have a fundamental right to possess firearms.
As established in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, such as self-defense. Any state law impacting this right would be subject to judicial scrutiny and likely strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny is applied when a law impacts a fundamental right or involves a suspect classification. Such laws must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
While the right to bear arms is protected, the Supreme Court acknowledges that this right is not absolute and can be subject to regulations. Restrictions such as background checks and prohibitions for certain individuals (like felons or the mentally ill) have been upheld.
However there is legal precedent that excessive economic barriers to exercising a fundamental right can be problematic. For instance, in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections (1966), the Court struck down a poll tax as it constituted a barrier to the fundamental right to vote.
Given these principles, a mandatory $300,000 insurance policy could be seen as a substantial economic barrier to exercising the right to bear arms. The Court would likely assess whether the law is justifiable under strict scrutiny. If the state argues that the law serves public safety, the Court would consider whether it’s narrowly tailored to that interest.
If the requirement disproportionately affects lower-income individuals, the Court might view it as an undue burden on the fundamental right to bear arms, similar to how poll taxes were viewed as barriers to voting rights.
All of this is very stupid, and does not happen in normal liberal democracies
If the Constitution currently expresses a stronger, more irrevocable right to own firearms than to operate a motor vehicle, then it very much has its priorities out of whack, considering which one of those is more likely to be urgently needed by the populace. It needs to be changed. There’s a reason they’re called “Amendments”.
Sorry, but you have no right to cars as there were none in 1776, horse and buggy only.
It doesn’t prevent you from keeping and bearing arms, it makes you responsible if you choose to carry a firearm with you, which isn’t a fundamental right and never has been.
It imposes a new financial and bureaucratic penalty on all who wish to exercise their fundamental right of self-defense in any area that is not their home. The text of the 2nd amendment does not say that the right to keep and bear arms shall be conditioned on compliance with everchanging insurance requirements. It says that it shall not be infringed.
I agree with your point. But our opinions don’t matter. There are 6 people on SCOTUS right now who will see this differently than us, and, ultimately, their opinions are the only ones that matter. And their opinions are not subject to appeal or oversight - they are absolute in matters of Constitutional interpretation.
We have a terrible system that is in need of drastic reform
Self defense with a gun is not a guaranteed right under the second amendment. It doesn’t say you have a right to carry a gun. The term “arms” has always had limitations as has the ability to carry a gun. The second amendment is not unlimited.
The justices you mention are anti second amendment, because they won’t allow guns into supreme court sessions.
Keep and bear arms
It’s literally right there bro
bear /bâr/
-
To carry (something) on one’s person from one place to another. “bore the suitcase to the station."
-
To move from one place to another while containing or supporting (something); convey or transport: “a train bearing grain.”
-
To cause to move by or with steady pressure; push. “a boat borne along by the current.”
You can bear a pitchfork. That’s an arm
If you want to bear a gun you need insurance. Not happy? Just bear a pitchfork.
Want to bear a nuclear warhead? Not available to the general population in the us yet. Is this infringing your rights? The constitution says you can bear arms, not that you should be allowed to bear whatever arms you want.
-
Ultimately we need to thank the Roberts Court for teaching Americans that previously established rulings can be overturned, a la Roe
I’m thinking when the pendulum swings back and liberals control the court, we’ll take a closer look at the part of the 2nd amendment that says ‘we’ll regulated’.
‘we’ll regulated’
Can you imagine the chaos if SCOTUS took a second look at the 2nd amendment (in the original document, for some reason… just go with it) and found an apostrophe?
It’s been chilling there since 1789. How is this the first time somebody noticed it? What tf is “a we’ll regulated militia” supposed to entail?? What will be the rippling effects on the state of national politics???
Find out on the next episode of Alternate History by a Pedantic Loser on Lemmy! (I’m sorry)
I mean there are spelling mistakes in the document I’m pretty sure ;p
Even if that potential court swing does happen, we will still be keeping the guns. Americans have 400 million or more of them already, in private hands, mostly unregistered.
I would personally never give up that right, regardless of the law. It’s a fundamental human right to self defense.
Number 1 cause of death for children is gunshot. Gotta do something about that even if it does mean you can’t have a tomahak missile to protect you from burglary.
That’s a very misleading fake statistic and if you look at the total number of children in the USA who are killed OR injured by firearms annually, it amounts to a tiny fraction of the overall population, and 99.9999% of children are not killed or injured by any firearm.
So I reject your tired “but think of the children” excuse to put any limits on the freedom of American citizens.
Anything that doesn’t confirm your bias is a misleading fake statistic. Also lol at the freedom thing because the guns are literally the excuse the government has used to create a massive police state where everything from middle schools to the post office has its own police force authorized to kill or arrest you and send you to do slave labor in the prison system.
This would go to the supreme court who would rule that restricting the right to bear arms to someone’s financial status is unconstitutional or some shit.
Well it is. If you’re going to let everyone have guns, you shouldn’t restrict ownership based on who can afford insurance on it.
I don’t think any private citizen should be able to own guns anyway though.
I agree that individuals shouldn’t own guns.
I think the second amendment should always been about the right to have state organized militias. I think that is a fair thing to have to avoid tyranny. The convoluted mess of a legal argument that judges have stood up to justify everyone having guns is just insane to me. The ultra minority who have easy access to guns and shoot people up… every single week… is not worth the benefit of having 60% right side hearing loss by 40 like my gun loving friends in the midwest.
Have people in the Midwest never heard of hearing protection or something? I was raised in a rural area and did target and clay shooting a lot. I always wore hearing protection, and my ears work just fine now.
I most definitely agree with your ideas on state militias, especially in more populated areas. I think at least hunting rifles and shotguns should be available to people living in rural areas.
My constitutional right to an AR 15 depends on my ability to pay $2,000 or whatever they cost. Not in my budget. The old bank account needs more freedoms it seems.
This is a joke, but seriously though - how is affordability an argument when guns also cost money?
Reasonable vs unreasonable expense. You need to buy a gun, ammunition, and a training course? Not a problem. You need to buy a gun, ammo, and a $300k golden stamp, that’s not fine, because it is prohibitively expensive.
If this type of insurance is illegal or prohibitively expensive, then this will be struck down. If not, it might be permitted, or it might not. The supreme court is extremely conservative right now, so I suspect it would be struck down regardless.
a $300k golden stamp
$300k of liability insurance does not cost $300k. That’s literally the point of insurance.
I picked an arbitrary number, which happened to match the article. I am aware $300k insurance doesn’t cost $300k.
Your case is for reasonable vs unreasonable expenses though. When someone can afford thousands for a gun and many other recurring expenses, a $50-100/month policy is completely reasonable. At the very least, it doesn’t separate gun ownership into different wealth classes.
$600 /year fee
“completely reasonable”
Please put down the internet and bring that talk to some poors, I guarantee that you’ll get laughed at openly
Why are “the poors” buying expensive guns? If you’re buying a tool that can accidentally and instantly murder someone very easily, and you have no way to pay for that mistake, then gun ownership is too expensive for you.
Really?
How is affordability a concern for insulin, when it also costs money?
Obviously one is a medical necessity and the other is not. But the point carries.
Lawful users of firearms are disproportionately affected by this, compared to the murderer that’s getting their firearms illicitly.
It’s not solving a problem, it’s pushing the accessibility further away from the common man. Bit by bit.
As a non American. Why the fuck do you need access to an ar15 or whatever that was in the first place though. Normal people would think that pushing accessibility away from the common man is a fucking good thing! Are you also interested in getting your hands on chemical weapons while we are at it? do you see it as a problem when your government is trying to limit access to mustard gas or chlorine gas for the common man?
Bit by bit, these bills could help the US to get into the 20th century and start to catch up with Western world civilization.
Also non-American here and I have indeed eyed an AR-15 once or twice. That’d be contingent on me getting a hunting license, though, and while I’d like to it’s probably something for retirement.
Why AR-15? Semi-auto, reliable, very accurate. “But it’s a weapon of war” a) no it isn’t, it just looks like one because it’s modern and b) your grandpa’s Mauser 98 is a weapon of war, it probably even was on the front!
>Bit by bit, these bills could help the US to get into the 20th century and start to catch up with Western world civilization.
what does “under no pretext” mean?
Well tbf “no guns for poor people” is pretty classist.
It’s it more classist than no car if you can’t afford insurance, or no mortgage if you can’t afford home loan insurance (or whatever it’s called in the us) though? And where are our priorities between gun, car and roof over ones head? Are guns really THAT important to cry class injustice?
Yeah tbh I’m not a fan of those being mandatory either, though seeing as “driving cars on public roads” is a privilege that you need to be licensed for rather than a right, that one is understandable. Guns are an important priority though, you may be in a safe enough area but not all of us have that luxury or privilege.
And that’s why you want less guns going around, not more
Unfortunately there are over 600,000,000 guns in the country in 50% of civilians hands with no registry to know where they’re at and neither the legal owners nor illegal owners are willing to part with them, pandora’s box has been opened. This is among the chief reasons availability to those who haven’t proven themselves a danger is important, self defense.
Sure, keep getting more then
So about the same situation as Australia used to be in before they banned guns after the massacre of the 90’s.
I mean, no, not at all. Iirc they had a registry, but for sure they had much less than 600,000,000 guns. Aus had 6.52 licensed firearm owners per 100 citizens in '97, we have 120 firearms per 100 citizens and a carry license in some states, but no ownership licensing or registry to know who/where at all. Also, fun fact, A 2003 study (Reuter and Mouzos, 2003) estimated that approximately 20 percent of Australia’s firearms were retrieved during the buyback, let’s do some math shall we? If we do the same, and ours is just as effective as theirs, 20% of 600,000,000 is 120,000,000 leaving 480,000,000 guns. Yaaay. Of course since they had a registry and less gun owners (6.2 aus vs 120 US), and they viewed firearms differently than the US where the owners refuse to give up their freedoms, their buyback was easier and we can expect it to be less effective.
Something needs to be done but wow this feels like the worst way to go.
Oh you mean the way that let’s the monied ruling class stay armed while all the rest of us lowly poors can’t be. Surely that genius plan won’t ever backfire.
Surely that genius plan won’t ever backfire.
And the current gun laws haven’t backfired? The country is a fucking mess and none of the pro-gun promises have come true.
Authoritarians have never been more powerful and the guns have done nothing to stop them. The most effective way to keep your family safe is to just move to a wealthy country that doesn’t routinely arm domestic abusers, extremists and the deeply mentally ill with the weapons they need to quickly and efficiently kill anyone they want.
You’re not a champion of peoples rights, you’re a simp for the gun lobby with delusions of grandeur.
There’s a difference between bureaucratic bullshittery and willfully making things worse for one specific class.
And what is that difference?
Here’s the problem…
We can require automobile insurance because driving a car isn’t a right.
Now, owning a gun is a right, and you could argue that wearing or carrying the gun is not, but then you have to go back to New York vs Bruen:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/20-843/
New York used to require special permission to wear or carry a gun. You had to provide special justification for your need to carry and “because I don’t feel safe” or “I want to defend myself” wasn’t good enough.
Supreme Court ruled:
“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.”
Given that, I can’t imagine they would hold an insurance requirement to be constitutional.
Should Alex Jones be forced to have liability insurance before spouting off conspiracy theories on InfoWars? Yeah, probably. But that’s not the way the first amendment works either.
I agree that their interpretation would work that way, however, I don’t see how they can pretend their interpretation of the second amendment is anything like that of the first. They restrict time and place of first amendment rights constantly. The government can make you get a permit in order to hold a demonstration on public land. There are “free speech zones”, and things like protests of pipelines are broken up by the government all of the time.
I know we shouldn’t expect consistency from this bunch of looney tunes, but I still think it’s worth pointing out that they’re not being consistent at all.
Well, the 2nd is restricted similarly. For example, even with a permit, you can’t carry concealed in a courtroom. The waiver is for “in general”.
Problem. That entire ruling was based off the idea that there was no such regulations in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Except it was an extremely common regulation. And even in that paragraph they lie. Try having a protest without a permit. Ask them how many times the government is allowed to put someone on trial. Ask them about the 4th amendment right against illegal searches and seizures, specifically Civil Asset Forfeiture, where you have to request the government to give you your stuff back that was seized without any due process. I could keep going.
A SCOTUS that lies to itself and the world for ideological purposes is not an authority on our rights.
Just because you don’t recognize their authority doesn’t mean they aren’t the authority though, at least until the composition changes again.
This is why it’s going to be so important to have a Democratic President in when Thomas and Alito leave the court, they are the two oldest members and it could happen in either the '24 or '28 terms.
None of those other amendment rights are an inherent physical danger to innocent people. The Second Amendment is.
Carrying concealed does not pose an inherent danger to anyone either.
In fact:
"Combining Florida and Texas data, we find that permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth of the rate for police officers.
Among police, firearms violations occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Among permit holders in Florida and Texas, the rate is only 2.4 per 100,000. That is just 1/7th of the rate for police officers. But there’s no need to focus on Texas and Florida — the data are similar in other states."
A weapon poses an inherent danger no matter how it’s carried or not carried. It’s the very nature of a weapon. Having insurance makes sense.
Hopefully the criminals who typically commit robberies, murders, etc will forgo that lifestyle when they remember they don’t have the insurance to do it. I can’t see anywhere this law would not he a benefit to all.
This way you get only criminals carrying a gun, not criminal and idiots. Sounds like a small win to me
But it’s not like insurance is going to help. If you buy a gun that gets used in a shooting, it’s still used in a shooting. The only difference is that someone might get money, but it doesn’t actually solve any problem.
What it does do is place a regressive tax on gun ownership.
Monetary compensation for harm is very common in our society. E.g. that why a person who commits sexual assault pays compensation to the victim. Didn’t solve the problem, but it compensates an innocent victim. Same in a shooting.
Bro there’s so many tools that can be used to kill people. Can’t legislate all of them out of reach of everyone.
The core issue doesn’t lie with what tool is used.
Guns aren’t tools. People with guns are the tools.
Never understood why you have to have insurance to operate vehicles, but not have insurance for weapons, or dogs for that matter.
Because of owning of weapons is a constitutional right with very limited means to restrict your rights too.
owning/operating a vehicle is simply a privilege that is easily revoked for any number of reasons.
Because the constitution was written 200 years ago, and is not fit for the modern day.
Requiring insurance should fall under the definition of “well regulated”
In a common sense society that doesnt worship a single phrase from a 200 year old document, yes.
It’s wild that “militia” is still considered relevant.
Like, are we really still in a time when your town of 100 settlers might get attacked by Native Americans from the West and the British from the East?
We gonna ring the bell and dole out muskets to every able-bodied man and boy in the village?
Muskets — and ammo, and gunpowder — from the armory, since it was impractical and dangerous to keep that stuff at home?
And lest we forget, these MFers passed ten amendments right off the bat. They thought we’d be ready to change this shit on the fly as the world evolved.
People say they meant for amendments to be difficult to pass. But they really had no idea what the right calibration would be. It was a new thing! And they had just managed to get unanimous buy-in to start the thing. How hard could a 3/4 vote be?
The militias were mainly for putting down slave revolts
“Well regulated” does not mean now what it meant back then. In the context of the constitutional times “regulated” meant trained, supplied, and such shape ready to fight instead of legislated or controlled by the government.
You could also argue that the National Guard is the well regulated militia.
We could also be realistic and admit that the point of the Second Amendment isn’t really valid anymore. The entire reason it existed was cuz Patrick Henry was scared of slave uprisings. That was its purpose.
How do you know that? It doesn’t say that in the Constitution.
Seems Oxford dictionary has taken it upon themselves to become a subscription based service so I can no longer access these historical definitions, but thankfully since this topic has already been exhausted someone else recorded a few on a site they host. These are still on Oxford I’m sure just behind that paywall if you wanna verify.
A vehicle is a weapon.
Anything can be a weapon with enough effort and intent. Even your teeth. You want to start restricting everything that could possibly be a weapon?
I mean, as of right now if you use something as a weapon in a way that breaks the law you’re civilly liable. the restrictions are already there and always have been.
But how will militias hunt escaped slaves without the second amendment?
having a constitutional right to carry a weapon does not shield you from responsibility if you misuse that weapon in a way that violates my rights.
Who said it did?
That’s what the insurance is for
Insurance is for making insurance companies money and nothing more.
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.
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”
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…
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.
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
There are places that mandate dog insurance if the dog has been aggressive in the past. It’s at least a partial step in the right direction.
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.
The rights you enjoy are fleeting without enforcement mechanisms.
I’m not right wing. I’m a socialist.
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.
Yeah, I am anti gun, but if I lived in America, I’d definitely have one
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?
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.
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.
Impossible anount! How are they going to survive if they vantage carry a deadly weapons in public?
Ahhh, the old “let’s make something a right that only the rich can afford.” For all the “eat the rich” rhetoric here, there seems to be a lot of desire to increase the class divide even more by limiting rights to how much money you have.
It’s already very difficult to nearly impossible to obtain a purchase and carry permit in the state since Maryland is “May issue” state and NOT a “Shall issue” state. This means you can be denied a permit at the whim of local law enforcement unless you have an “in” with whoever is in charge. This is purely performative theater to buy votes.
And the two groups that really should have liability insurance - drug gangs and law enforcement - will be completely unaffected by this requirement.
MD is Shall Issue now, thanks to Bruen. Still very hard to obtain a permit, as you require 16 hours of instruction, passing a live-fire exam, and paying about $200 in fees (on top of the $400 class).
That doesn’t sound that hard.
Sir, that is unlicensed speech. You’ll need to take 16 hours of a $400 class and pay a $200 fee for a license to speak that way.
It should be a required safety test like with driver’s licenses, a reasonable compromise that you can also add immediate failure states to and doesn’t add an undue time and cost burden to people who aren’t dumbasses, unlike a class.
Get a child safety question wrong?
Fail.
Say you have the right to shoot a fleeing burglar in the back?
Also fail.
you don’t have the right to shoot a burglar in the front. loss of property isn’t an excusable reason to shoot someone. fear of bodily harm or death for you or someone else is.
loss of property isn’t an excusable reason to shoot someone.
Varies greatly depending on what state you live in. Texas, being the worst state for almost everything, doesn’t even require it to be your property. You can, in fact, defend your neighbors property with deadly force. You can also shoot them in the back if it’s nighttime.
TIL
Jeez, it sure would be awkward for your argument if a home invasion carried an inherent threat, which is why most robberies occur when no one is home to be threatened.
jeez it sure would be awkward if your argument made any sense. let me put it in caps for you. INHERENT THREAT.
But after that you can use that speech to kill a room full of children or a fleeing partner right?
I’m just going to come out and say it: Fuck your gun “rights”. I absolutely support it being taken away from you. It’s just as immoral as the right to own slaves was.
You’re hiding behind the word “right” because you know the only way to defend permissive gun laws is pretending that domestic abusers having poorly secured AR-15s is up there with “bodily autonomy” or “freedom of beliefs”.
Would you be playing your little “only bad guys take away rights” games if people had the “right” to help themselves to your daughters body? To kill you on a whim because of your skin color?
After all, anything you call a “right” is inherently good and ethical and to be preserved at all costs.
But after that you can use that speech to kill a room full of children or a fleeing partner right?
Oh shit they made school shootings legal if you have a permit? Missed that update.
right" to help themselves to your daughters body? To kill you on a whim because of your skin color?
Your rights end where another’s begin, you are not entitled to another’s body or life, you are however entitled to the tools with which to defend yourself if someone does try to violate your rights to your body or life. In your scenario, or should I say “currently,” I actually have the right to shoot the rapist or racist murderer.
Oh shit they made school shootings legal if you have a permit? Missed that update
They may as well given the disgustingly low bar you set for gun owners.
The laws the pro-gun community holds up as ideal couldn’t prevent the sale of a gun to a teenager with the nickname “school shooter” and a history of animal abuse, death and rape threats, days before he did a school shooting.
If you’re going to staunchly oppose gun control, why not just come out and say that you support selling semi-automatic weapons to far-right extremists, deeply disturbed men in the throes of psychosis, people who hit their partners and people who can’t secure their firearms from children?
Your rights end where another’s begin, you are not entitled to another’s body or life
I think you mean that other people’s rights end where yours begin.
After all, you have no problem bankrolling the gun-lobby who in turn fund the Republicans that openly campaign on a platform of taking away the rights of women and minorities.
Does a child have a right to safety and education? Only at the discretion of whatever insane fuckstick you’ve armed today because your guns are more important that someone else’s children.
I actually have the right to shoot the rapist or racist murderer.
And those rapists and murderers have the right to own guns because you insisted on it. Should we look at their statistics to see how that works out for everyone?
Oh what a shocking plot twist, it works out great for your as you sit there delivering on fuck all of your promises and it works out great for the rapists and racists.
Your right come at the expense of others and you’re not even good at hiding it.
They may as well given the disgustingly low bar you set for gun owners.
The laws the pro-gun community holds up as ideal couldn’t prevent the sale of a gun to a teenager with the nickname “school shooter” and a history of animal abuse, death and rape threats, days before he did a school shooting.
Translation: “I don’t know a damn thing about how to buy a gun in the US and I’m probably british.”
I think you mean that other people’s rights end where yours begin.
If you’re having difficulty parsing the statement it means that you don’t have the right to deprive another of their rights. I know it can be confusing for people like you who don’t like rights, so I understand.
After all, you have no problem bankrolling the gun-lobby
Well find me a gun company that …isn’t a gun company? I guess? What are your standards here lmao? Gotta buy them from the people who sell em, you ever buy weed in the US pre-'10? If yes, you feel bad about supporting the Sinaloa Cartel Lobby? Know what? I blame you, they wouldn’t have to lobby if people weren’t always trying to ban them.
Does a child have a right to safety and education?
Yes.
Only at the discretion of whatever insane fuckstick you’ve armed today because your guns are more important that someone else’s children.
Oh shit they made school shootings legal if you have a permit? Missed that update
And those rapists and murderers have the right to own guns because you insisted on it.
Well, not if they are a prohibited purchaser. And I’d rather their victims be able to have them too than just get raped and murdered at knifepoint instead. “You can run from knife,” ahh shaddup you better be fast then with that ableist take, and don’t try to pretend you weren’t about to type that shit either y’all are too predictable.
Should we look at their statistics to see how that works out for everyone?
Yes. According to John Lott, Gary Kleck, and the CDC, the estimate for defensive gun use in the 90s was somewhere between 500,000 and 3,000,000 times per year. The study in question was survey based, and included “defensive display,” which is a defense in which simply making the attacker aware of the presence of a firearm is enough to scare them off. Due to this, and the wide gap between the high/low end, the veracity of this study has been debated. However, according to a recent Harvard study done to discredit that “myth of the good guy with a gun,” they say a “more realistic estimate” of defensive gun use which does NOT include defensive display and is based solely off verifiable police reports is 100,000 per year.
Well, that takes care of the DGU, what about the deaths? Surely more than 100k/yr! Let’s see here, our murder rate yearly according to the FBI is about 15,000/yr.… Hol’ up, 15,000 homicides/yr? Shit, that is MUCH less than 100,000 dgu/yr. Well alright alright I know what’ll get those self defenders! The total gun death rate including homicides, suicides, and accidents! Surely there’s 1,000,000/yr! In 2021, there were a total of 48,830 firearm deaths. Hmm well shit. Turns out that doesn’t do it either, since 48,830<100,000. Damn, I guess guns are used in defense more than deaths. Who’da thunk it?
Oh what a shocking plot twist, it works out great for your as you sit there delivering on fuck all of your promises and it works out great for the rapists and racists.
I’ll twist your twister with the 100,000 people it DID work out great for every year, that’s 51,170 more twists! Get twisted on, go twist yourself.
Your right come at the expense of others
Your Mama comes at the expense of others, and it isn’t even that expensive.
Well when all the classes are only offered during the week (or charge more for weekend classes), taking two days off work and spending a whole paycheck just on a permit is rather difficult.
Just don’t bring your gun to your favorite walmart?..
You don’t have to bring the fucking thing around with you everywhere
You were never a boy scout were you? Ever heard of being prepared? Maybe the phrase “I’d rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it”? Bet the people in the Walmart shooting in Texas a few years ago wish they would have taken their gun into the Walmart.
“Being prepared” is running away. 100% of the time.
Those “good guys w/ a guy” stories are legit almost always an off-duty cop who knows how to handle the situation (and the gun)
You dweeb come-and-take-its don’t need it at a Walmart
Can you run 1200fps?
So your advice to people in an active shooter situation is to always run? Not seek cover? Not stay low and observe the situation? Just run 100% of the time? I pray you don’t take your own advice.
It’s definitely odd seeing the crowd cheering for regulatory capture, that’s certain. Doubly infuriating because this kind of legislation will not solve problems, it’s virtue signaling to anti-gun donors and voters, that just pisses off everyone who has to live with it. How does insurance solve harm? It doesn’t, and I’d argue this is legally untested enough that a carrier can likely find ways to get out from paying.
There’s much better areas to start unraveling this issue, but they’re hard and don’t make quick headlines for clout:
- Expand the denied persons categories, including domestic violence, including cops
- Actually enforce sentencing for gun charges instead of pleading out, so ‘repeat offender’ laws actually work as designed
- Focus funding and diversion efforts at gang members who commit violence in communities, instead of broad, cosmetic centric bans
- Stop fetishizing guns as ‘manly’ or ‘powerful’ instead of just the deadly tools they are. Society shares blame here, but gun marketing absolutely took that an RAN with it
It’s already very difficult to nearly impossible to obtain a purchase and carry permit in the state since Maryland is “May issue” state and NOT a “Shall issue” state.
You almost make it sound like this is a bad thing?
I appreciate that they’re trying to do something here, but this doesn’t feel like it’s aimed at stopping actually dangerous people. This feels like it’s aimed at beating on people who were already willing to deal with Maryland’s already more-strict-than-usual gun laws.
But I guess we’ll see how this pans out in a few years.
Another right-wing bill that gives the rich power over poor, disguised as left-wing bill. All politicians in power are rich, which is why they always push for right-wing politics, democrat or republican, always end up against the working class. There is a good video about this.
Hahahaha I hope this passes. No insurance company would write those policies.
They should, but not for the kinds of assholes who want to carry guns everywhere.
You don’t have to be an asshole to want to carry a gun around everywhere. When you’re surrounded by people who openly discuss murdering you for your political stance, or your personal identity, or how you were born, and those people are intent on carrying guns to “defend” against threats that do no exist, meanwhile feeding themselves a steady diet of hate and discontent mixed with conspiracy theories… carrying may be the only thing between you and a lynching.
In short: take those people’s guns and the rest of us can finally abandon these barbaric relics to the anals of history.
So how much could such insurance actually cost? Does anyone have the numbers to do the maths?
Say a single policy covers any number of guns a person has. So we need a number of people owning guns.
A death is definitely 300k payout. What kind of payout, on average, would injury be? Also 300k because healthcare costs are insane? Less than that?
How many people are killed using a gun every year?
How many are injured?
I wonder what the pure business cost would be for the insurance. I don’t actually know how large a profit margin insurance companies run, would curious to sort of blindly apply that here as well.
