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.
There are some serious downsides. In this case, this should get progressive alarms going off.
But before we get to the bulk, I’m going to repeat my last line’s question first. Why invent new ways to fuck the poor in the name of gun control when we have solutions that work?
Simply tracing, background checks, and better regulation all-round would be more effective than a regressive tax on gun ownership. And those things are well-established and well-tested in society. Regulations WORK. So why invent new ways to fuck the poor in the name of gun control when we have solutions that work?
EDIT:
And some other thoughts that kinda go both ways at once. It looks like $300k is the quoted amount by most 2A firearm insurance companies. Almost like they lobbied for the bill. It makes me wonder if they would also lobby for weakening other regulations because “well gun owners are insured”.
And part 2 as a flipside. It looks like the costs might not be terribly high. I’m seeing quotes as low as $30/mo. It’s hard because they are all EXTREMELY shadey companies and (like other insurance companies) they like to hide their rates from potential buyers. As well as their fine print since the rates are so low from them avoiding paying out. By their fine print, it looks like they don’t pay out if your action might have been criminal. So the insurance doesn’t actually pay the victims of anything except accidental discharge.
But then, do we want to empower another questionably corrupt industry by mandating gun owners be their customers?
How about instead of requiring the poor to spend money on guns, you make sure that they don’t need guns to be protected?
I agree completely. That’s a better use of time than passing a law that will have little to no positive effect on gun control and only hurts the poor.
Just because a bill says a certain phrase doesn’t mean we need to support it. A Gun Control law that says “White people get to take black people’s guns” is not a good law. A Gun Control law that says “Gun ownership is punishable by death” is not a good law.
A law that says “you have to buy this insurance prohibitive to poor people but not rich to people” is not a good law.
The only thing worse than “a lot more guns” is “a lot more guns in the hands of only certain classes of people who already have too many”