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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    2
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    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 cult church, 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.)

    • @maryjayjay
      link
      15 months ago

      That is a very good perspective. Thank you for the thoughtful and reasoned perspective. You’ve given me many things to consider

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      15 months ago

      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

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        15 months ago

        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.