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.
A bit about me for context: I'm Canadian, I have an interest in guns. I do not own any guns. I can imagine myself owning a gun, but don't want one right now. I know a bit about guns, but not a lot. eg Rim fire vs center fire, and that there isn't anything specific that makes a rifle an assault rifle. I support gun regulation but think Canada's recent changes go too far (it's now impossible for a normal citizen to legally obtain a handgun in Canada).
My two cents on this bill:
Every responsible gun owner ought to have liability insurance that covers their firearms regardless of whether or not it's required.
Objections to such requirements based on the cost of insurance could be overcome in a few ways. Two that occur to me off the top of my head:
a. Individual insurance could be not necessary if the citizen is a member of a well regulated militia (but the state could define what qualifies as a well regulated militia, maybe: shared liability, annual training)
b. The state could offer tax payer funded insurance, for gun owners that agree to certain conditions e.g. gun use, storage (and inspections)
I look forward to the comments.
Ooh give the gun nuts socialized gun insurance. I’ll get my popcorn.
It's not the responsible ones that are the problem here.
I agree, the point is that it's awkward for someone to oppose this policy because they're kind of confessing to being irresponsible.
Very good, be grateful you live in a modern and civilized place, go out and do things that normal citizens do then. Get a hobby. You don't need to own or use deadly weapons nor be part of a 'well regulated militia', no one does.
Hey I'm not sure this was your intention but the way you passed your response feels like you're criticizing me.
It makes it hard to respond without seeming like I'm on the defensive. But for example, I am grateful to live in a country with more sane gun laws than the USA. I do things normal^tm^ citizens do. I also happen to know normal^tm^ people that own guns. How do I know them? By participating in hobbies (with them). Like yeah I agree not many people need to own guns but a lot do, and if you want to improve the gun situation in the USA there are some legal and political realities you'll have to work within.