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.

    • prayer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Well when all the classes are only offered during the week (or charge more for weekend classes), taking two days off work and spending a whole paycheck just on a permit is rather difficult.

    • FontMasterFlex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      Sir, that is unlicensed speech. You’ll need to take 16 hours of a $400 class and pay a $200 fee for a license to speak that way.

      • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        It should be a required safety test like with driver’s licenses, a reasonable compromise that you can also add immediate failure states to and doesn’t add an undue time and cost burden to people who aren’t dumbasses, unlike a class.

        Get a child safety question wrong?

        Fail.

        Say you have the right to shoot a fleeing burglar in the back?

        Also fail.

        • FontMasterFlex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          you don’t have the right to shoot a burglar in the front. loss of property isn’t an excusable reason to shoot someone. fear of bodily harm or death for you or someone else is.

          • uid0gid0@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            loss of property isn’t an excusable reason to shoot someone.

            Varies greatly depending on what state you live in. Texas, being the worst state for almost everything, doesn’t even require it to be your property. You can, in fact, defend your neighbors property with deadly force. You can also shoot them in the back if it’s nighttime.

          • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Jeez, it sure would be awkward for your argument if a home invasion carried an inherent threat, which is why most robberies occur when no one is home to be threatened.

            • FontMasterFlex@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              10 months ago

              jeez it sure would be awkward if your argument made any sense. let me put it in caps for you. INHERENT THREAT.

          • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            “allows you to run your mouth like a rabid retarded monkey trying to hump a door knob into submission.”

            Attacking other users with (admittedly) highly creative ableist slurs is not allowed. Keep it civil.