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.

  • @kromem
    link
    English
    1
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      310 months ago

      @mob expressed himself wrong. It doesn’t really hurt the poor people directly, but it does transfer even more power to rich by allowing them to arm themselves and stopping anyone from working class to do so as well. It is ultimately a right-wing bill disguised as left-wing, as all laws end up being in the end.

      • @kromem
        link
        English
        010 months ago

        A $1 million umbrella policy is like $200/year.

        Who can afford guns but not a $300k insurance policy to avoid going bankrupt if they have to use them?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          19 months ago

          Maybe people with bad credit scores? If everyone can afford it, why make it into a bill? Is it just marketing for politicains so they can just pretend they are doing something about it, or are they actively discriminating from the poor.

          • @kromem
            link
            English
            19 months ago

            If everyone can afford it, why make it into a bill?

            The same reason you need car insurance to drive or medical insurance?

            Because even if most can afford the insurance, most can’t afford the costs when they’d need the insurance but don’t have it?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              09 months ago

              With medical insurance the money goes to paying the hospital bill. We need insurance to cover the costs. What do I get with a gun insurance? Cost for what? Free guns? If I get nothing in return, I should pay nothing.

              • @kromem
                link
                English
                19 months ago

                It’s to cover things like payouts in suits against you for shooting someone or paying your legal bills (which can exceed hundreds of thousands of dollars even when it’s clearly self-defense).

                Owning a gun isn’t that expensive. But should you ever have to use it for your safety, even when justified, it could bankrupt you.

                That’s exactly the kind of situation where mandated insurance is a wise thing to require.

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

      I think you are the first person in this thread to understand that $300k is the policy amount, not the cost…