Maryland bill would force gun owners to get $300K liability insurance to wear or carry
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.
So, let me see if I've got this right.
Maryland wants to have a privately-enforced tax on the exercise of a constitutional right. Do I have that more or less correct? Perhaps you could also have a requirement that all religious congregations or any kind have a $1B policy in case there is sexual misconduct by a member of the congregation?
A tax that disproportionally affects poor people. We wouldn't want those people having guns, now would we?
I genuinely would. I believe that all people (that aren't prohibited due to prior illegal violent actions) should be able to exercise their rights, if that is their choice. I don't think people should be required to own firearms, any more than I think that anyone should be required to vote. But I don't think that the state should be trying to prevent either. And it really pisses me off that gun owners in general want to close off exercise of rights to the "wrong" people, esp. non-white people, LGBTQ+ people, and anyone that's to the political left of Benitto Mussolini.
Not the congregation, but perhaps the clergy should carry insurance. Especially if they're part of a church that has a history of sexual assault in their organization
I would suggest that you look into church sex abuse cases. It's not always the clergy that's committing abuse. Quite often it's members, and the clergy is covering it up because of the priest-penitent privilege (edit: and to protect the reputation of the church; this has been true with the Mormon
cultchurch, JWs, Southern Baptist Convention members, and many, many other churches). (Which, BTW, only means that they their testimony can't be used in an investigation or trial without the permission of the penitent. It does not legally bar them from alerting the police that abuse has occurred.)That is a very good perspective. Thank you for the thoughtful and reasoned perspective. You've given me many things to consider
The confessional is basically old school therapy - it needs to be confidential, because the idea is that the priest can then influence things that people never want to see the light of day.
For example, a Catholic priest could say that the penance for their actions is to turn themselves in, and they could take that opportunity to confront the person with the reality of what this is like for the victim.
You can argue that at some point, the future harm to others overrides that oath to the privacy of that action, but that's a very complicated ethics question.
The priest could, in any situation, break that oath and be defrocked at worst... But they could also say "I'm here to redeem this person" or "I made an oath and I can't break it", and work them towards coming forward themselves. They could also bend it, and without revealing anything, approach and try to support the victim so they feel safe coming forward
The right answer is going to be nuanced and situational, and I'm sure many have failed ethically, but it's not a simple question
If a penitent is unwilling to accept the consequences of their actions, then are they truly penitent? AA tells people that part of their journey to sobriety requires making amends for what they did; why is a child rapist being let off more easily than a drunk?
If I were clergy, I would tell a penitent that there was no forgiveness in this life or the next until they had confessed to police and pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. In my reading of the bible, this is not a conflict; James 2:18 says, "But someone will say, 'You have faith, and I have works.' Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.". Real faith, and real repentance, requires an outward manifestation, although the manifestation is not proof by itself of faith. So a penitent that is actually penitent--and thus ready to accept the forgiveness of their god--must be willing to accept the secular consequences of their actions.
Yeah.....about that
That is optional insurance, not mandated by a state law. You can already buy insurance (Edit: for firearms) to protect you in case of negligence, or prosecution for something you claim is self-defense.
Only if you believe it's an individual right, which you can't without ignoring half the amendment that creates it.
Well, yeah, actually I can, because of the history surrounding that text, and what it meant when it was written.
The part you are conveniently ignoring is the body of the constitution prior to the bill of rights that gives congress the power to raise an army, and to equip that army. If congress already has the power to raise an army/militia and provide arms for them, then why would you need an amendment saying that congress can't pass laws to prevent itself from arming an army? (For your reference that is Article 1, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power ... To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years ...To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions ... To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"
Moreover, when you look at the bill of rights, all of the rights are pertaining to individual people (or people and states, in the case of 10A). It's pretty clear that the freedom of the press isn't a collective right, but one that is an individual right.
Beyond that, you need to understand what they meant by militia; the militia was every able-bodied male below about 50 (not sure on the exact age cutoffs); in many cases they were legally obligated to provide their own arms (despite the constitution saying that the gov't could pay for them), those arms were required to be militarily useful, and they were required to train both on their own and with other members of the militia.
Yawn. I've heard those arguments before and they're all what I categorize as mental gymnastics.