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.
Seems fair. If the risk is low, cost will be low. Let the free market decide, right?
It will be low. Super low. $300k is pocket change when the incidence for gun carriers to use them is extremely low. It’s why we can constantly mock the tacti-cool warriors for thinking they need a gun on them at all times. Plus, the insurance company has way more flexibility in proving their client was not at fault in the incident compared to the shenanigans they have to pull now for car wrecks.
It’s hard to imagine a reasonable objection, then. I don’t trust insurance companies very much, but if there’s one thing they do well, it’s associating risk with cost.
It’s why we can constantly mock the tacti-cool warriors for thinking they need a gun on them at all times.
That’s doesn’t make sense. We mock them for thinking they’re in danger without a gun. Insurance is for the danger they create by carrying a gun.
thinking they need a gun on them at all times
thinking they’re in danger without a gun
Yes, that’s what was said
Its cheap because theres almost no risk. Tiger attack insurance is very cheap in the US too.
So whats the point? Insurance cant possibly solve any actual problems associated with gun violence.
I would bet that tiger attack insurance for someone who brings a tiger with then in public would be astronomical.
The point is to put the burden of cost where it actually belongs. Instead of society footing the bill, now gun owners will pay into an insurance system that will cover costs in the event of damage.
Ok, I’ll try a better analogy. Why not require fist-punching insurance for anyone who wants to take their hands out in public?
Personal liability insurance exists. It’s often included in home or renter’s insurance. If someone knows they’re likely to end up in a lawsuit because they love punching people, it would behoove them to get that.
But the damage that can be done by a pair of fists is often a low enough dollar number (and jail time) that it can reasonably be paid by the person owning them. A broken orbital socket is a hell of a lot cheaper than, say, three people’s lives. There’s also unlikely to be collateral damage with fists, since they can only travel so far. Most people can’t pay for the damages in a shooting event, and right now that cost is instead being covered by taxpayers.
Insurance isn’t for the small things, like a broken window or punching someone. It’s for very expensive, sometimes catastrophic damage.
Well, CCW insurance really only covers legal costs associated with CCW use. Unfortunately in some states, it’s entirely possible (and in some states likely!) that someone who uses their firearm in self defense can get charged with a crime or sued by their attackers, regardless of how justified their use of force was.
I’m aware of some policies that cover third party damages like hospital bills and property damage, but the victims in this case are never held liable anyway.
So am I missing something? Especially given that practically all gun violence and deaths come from suicide and organized crime, how does this bill help anyone? CCW holders are statistically much less likely to break laws than those who don’t have a license, these people really shouldn’t worry anyone. This reeks of political posturing to me.
Edit: Just read that the law requires bodily harm and property damage coverage, so nevermind. The only scenario where the CCW holder would be liable for those damages is if their use of force isn’t justified, so I’m still not sure how this helps anyone.
Well insurance companies might deny coverage for people with a documented past of mental illness or violent behavior, which is more due diligence than many states are apparently putting in.
I mean it’s fucked and the proper solution should of course be regulation and proper background checks should not be too much to expect, but if everything has to be a “free market” masquerade then that would still be better than nothing (though I agree not by very much).
That’s still not going to stop any crimes. They still have the right to buy it, if they can pass the background check. If they want to commit a crime with it, the fact that it’s illegal to do so without insurance means nothing and prevents nothing.
Yeah, that’s the typical “but murder is already illegal!” pro-gun argument. I don’t think insurance policies are a good solution, but if it at least prevents the “mostly law-abiding citizen with anger issues who will use a gun against someone if given an excuse, but is too much of a pussy to carry one around illegally” from getting a gun, then that’s better than nothing.
You still don’t seem to understand that this would not prevent anyone from getting a gun. It would not, read up on the details.
I can read. My point is that lots of people buy a gun specifically to carry it in public. If they know they are uninsurable and won’t be able to carry it without getting into legal trouble (assuming there is a dissuasive penalty for illegally carrying… which is doubtful), they might not get a gun.
Sure, you can make up a lot a scenarios where this law is completely ineffective but you also can’t pretend that it necessarily won’t have any effect.
That’s certainly what I’ve been told. The statistics look a little sketchy to me on that front, but I’m not a mathematician and insurance companies will surely do a better analysis than anyone on this thread.
The only sure thing is that insurance companies will try to make as much money off this as possible, especially if it becomes required by law to have.
That’s where competition is important. Get a bunch of insurers in the market and the profits they leech will be minimal. But health insurance is a fucking debacle over profits, so I definitely hear your concern.
Ask Floridians looking for flood or even just normal home insurance how competition is working for them.
The problem there is insuring housing isn’t financially viable because climate change has made it too costly to mass-build houses as often as they are destroyed. That’s not really similar to the gun violence marketplace.
The idea her is if folks can persuade insurance companies that they are stable and responsible enough, insurance for them will be cheap. Meanwhile folks with domestic violence records or violent felonies would be priced out of having a gun or at least have the ability to bear the financial burden if something goes wrong. This is by no means a great solution, but 2A absolutists have the supreme court and the law is essentially that reasonable regulation isn’t possible.
Until that changes, I’ll accept a market solution.
Don’t some states have laws about profitability caps on insurance?
There were stories of some insurance companies refunding policy holders during COVID due to excess profits.
Now think about any of the school shootings and the amount of guns they used. Do you see a kid buying some guns AND having to have an insurance?
Well the liability aspect does include some risk.
It also depends if it’s on the weapon or person.
Specifically if the gun insured is used in a crime or to cause see harm. It doesn’t have to be the most extreme scenario.
If it’s per gun, that could easily be hundreds or thousands per month per gun hoarder.
deleted by creator
Free market pricing. Requiring someone to be indemnified when they are taking on risk greater than they could ever hope to repay if something goes wrong seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Awesome. We’re going to apply it to cops too, right?
Right?
Did you read the article? Yes, it applies to police.
LOLLLLLLL if you think it’ll make it to a final vote without a law enforcement exemption being added.
Yes, I quoted it in one of my other comments.
The law is not final yet, though. I’m sure there will be a wall of whine coming from the cops about how they’re so special and should be exempted. The real test will be if the legistlature capitulates or leaves them in there.
Fuck reading
deleted by creator
Some states require nurses to buy their own personal liability insurance, but cops get a pass. Does that seem right?
In a lot of states you need to get a license to be a hairdresser but not to be a cop.
deleted by creator
They already have insurance: you as the taxpayer.
deleted by creator
You think you’re making a clear point, but you aren’t.
deleted by creator
Are you being deliberately difficult?
You clearly said cops having liability insurance doesn’t make any sense and then doubled down by arguing that it’s because they have us the taxpayers instead.
If cops needed to get individual insurance and the ones that were reckless had to pay more or maybe even stop being cops because they can’t be insured, it would probably help.
Regardless, it comes off as if you are against it on top of belittling the above poster.
What they’re saying does make sense, it would just have to come with a few additional changes. Like making law enforcement officers easier to sue directly. Colorado has already revoked qualified immunity. It seems like you are being overly pedantic. No single step will fix the problem but the comment you are replying to is a step in a direction to address the issue
What I’m saying makes perfect sense.
Police misconduct is so rampant specifically because the taxpayer picks up the tab. Cops themselves can weasel out of being responsible for just about anything because they’re shielded by their department, or city, or state, or whatever. But if we held them personally accountable – financially, in this case – that’d stop that bullshit quick smart and in a hurry. Doctors have to carry insurance personally. So do truck drivers. You want to know why? Because those jobs hold the potential for catastrophically fucking up, with consequences very likely to affect other people. Why should cops be any different?
At the very least this should apply to all police who are not currently clocked in, in uniform, and on duty. Out here in the real world they have to play by the same rules as the rest of us.
Ha. Actually, from TFA:
As the bill is currently written, local and state law enforcement officers are not exempt from the insurance requirement.
So guess who else agrees with me.
I agree with you overall, but I expect taxes will just go up by however much is required to cover the insurance for the officers, so we will continue to pay for their malfeasance.
deleted by creator
These proposals would ultimately manifest in insurance for white peopel costing less and black people and hispanics costing more. All this does is price minorities out of gun rights. The whites will be fine, good thing they’re not the ones comitting the vast majority of gun terrorism . . . Oh wait I’ve just received some devastating statistics . . .
Insurance underwriters would surely base their insurance premiums off that very information. I think this may be a rare case of insurance actually being somewhat fair considering race.
Then again, Baltimore.
The overwhelming majority of gun deaths are sucide, organized crime also has a high share. The insurance premiums are not going to be based on whos more likely to do a mass shooting they’re gonna be based on every payout they prospectivly have to make. So people who will get the highest rates will be minorities and those seeking mental health treatment. So the best way to keep your premium low would be to be white and not seek mental health treatment. That’s not exactly behavior I would like financially incentivised.
I don’t know, based off the information you’re working with, we’re assuming that the gun insurers would be on the hook for life insurance claims?
That’s different than liability, which is what’s proposed here
deleted by creator
Don’t be a sucker. If dogshit gun laws made minorities safer, America would be the safest country in the world by a massive margin.
Concern trolling, classic.
wanna back that up with data?
Sure, here you go, exactly the kinds and sources and data insurers are going to look at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7226a9.htm
Seems to imply the biggest risks for insuring are Black men. White men come in even lower than Black women. I’m sure actuaries will pull more than just this graph but it’s pretty indicative of how it will shake out. Unless of course you have some sources you’d like to cite that imply otherwise.
The whites will be fine, good thing they’re not the ones comitting the vast majority of gun terrorism . . . Oh wait I’ve just received some devastating statistics . . .
I guess i misunderstood this line… the first part sure. i guess. there are poor white people too. but ok. the second part sounds like you’re being sarcastic about the first part… which is contradicted by the numbers you posted… so… i guess im still confused as to your stance.
I’m not very opinionated on guns tbh, but I do think this only makes it more difficult for poor people. I’m not sure I agree with that.
Never understood why you have to have insurance to operate vehicles, but not have insurance for weapons, or dogs for that matter.
Because owning of weapons is a constitutional right with very limited means to restrict your rights too.
owning/operating a vehicle is simply a privilege that is easily revoked for any number of reasons, and can have many barriers between you and having it.
Because the constitution was written 200 years ago, and is not fit for the modern day.
Requiring insurance should fall under the definition of “well regulated”
In a common sense society that doesnt worship a single phrase from a 200 year old document, yes.
“Well regulated” does not mean now what it meant back then. In the context of the constitutional times “regulated” meant trained, supplied, and such shape ready to fight instead of legislated or controlled by the government.
You could also argue that the National Guard is the well regulated militia.
Depending on which modern definition of “militia” you choose, the National Guard either is one or isn’t one.
But remember that the Bill of Rights serves to restrict the government from passing laws that infringe on certain rights - so it doesn’t grant you and I rights, it instead prevents the government from impeding on some the Founding Fathers felt The People (white dudes) had. It’d be ass backwards to argue that the government allows us freedom of expression, for example. That’s a natural right.
Building on that, stating that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the National Guard is a shortened way of saying “the government may not infringe on the People’s right to have a government sanctioned and controlled branch of the federal Armed Forces.” Anyone with a cursory understanding of the American Revolution will know that this is not at all what the Founding Fathers intended the 2A to do.
We could also be realistic and admit that the point of the Second Amendment isn’t really valid anymore. The entire reason it existed was cuz Patrick Henry was scared of slave uprisings. That was its purpose.
How do you know that? It doesn’t say that in the Constitution.
Why does this lie keep popping up? No it never meant that.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/
SCotUS has ruled that your relationship with a militia, well-regulated or otherwise, is irrelevant to your right to bear arms
edit: clarity
deleted by creator
It’s wild that “militia” is still considered relevant.
Like, are we really still in a time when your town of 100 settlers might get attacked by Native Americans from the West and the British from the East?
We gonna ring the bell and dole out muskets to every able-bodied man and boy in the village?
Muskets — and ammo, and gunpowder — from the armory, since it was impractical and dangerous to keep that stuff at home?
And lest we forget, these MFers passed ten amendments right off the bat. They thought we’d be ready to change this shit on the fly as the world evolved.
People say they meant for amendments to be difficult to pass. But they really had no idea what the right calibration would be. It was a new thing! And they had just managed to get unanimous buy-in to start the thing. How hard could a 3/4 vote be?
The militias were mainly for putting down slave revolts
Solely
having a constitutional right to carry a weapon does not shield you from responsibility if you misuse that weapon in a way that violates my rights.
Who said it did?
That’s what the insurance is for
Insurance is for making insurance companies money and nothing more.
A vehicle is a weapon.
Anything can be a weapon with enough effort and intent. Even your teeth. You want to start restricting everything that could possibly be a weapon?
I mean, as of right now if you use something as a weapon in a way that breaks the law you’re civilly liable. the restrictions are already there and always have been.
But how will militias hunt escaped slaves without the second amendment?
One is a right that shall not be infringed, and the other one is a state-regulated privilege (at least for operating the machine on public roads).
Very simple to understand actually. You can’t put paywalls in front of rights, so this will be dunked right down the shitter if it passes, by the courts.
historically the courts have allowed many restrictions to the second amendment, its only modern revisionism thats reinterpreted “well regulated militia” as “literally anyone except felons” and “the right to bear arms” as “gun companies have a right to unrestricted gun sales”
as “literally anyone except felons”
Oh don’t worry, they’re revising that part too. They want no limits whatsoever. They want felons to have guns.
The irony that the establishment considers the boom-boom death sticks as a “right” and the quite-literally-required car for modern society is a “privilege.”
You should need to have insurance for your stupid yee-yee adventures to shoot the melanin-enriched customers at a Walmart…
What a childish response. Your opinion is garbage.
Rights are something that nobody should ever agree to give up - especially a critical right that enables effective self-defense to the common citizen.
Fortunately there’s nothing you can do about it, as that right at least is well protected by law and the courts.
You can still buy, own, and shoot it. You just need to pay insurance (a very small one at that) to carry it around outside w/ you.
The LW motto should be “your opinion is garbage” because there is clearly no sane argument to be made against this law
Google “poll tax” so you can inform yourself why OP is correct legally.
Zero idea what either of your points is tbh. 0 logical sense.
You don’t have the right to take it into a Walmart and wave it around, full stop.
A tiny lil baby insurance (esp for the police) is a good thing you dorks
There are places that mandate dog insurance if the dog has been aggressive in the past. It’s at least a partial step in the right direction.
If you think that’s bad, I had to get a $1,000,000 umbrella coverage policy for our swimming pool to cover liability in case someone gets injured. I don’t think it’s unreasonable at all
SCOTUS would say that the distinction is that we don’t have a fundamental right under the Constitution to have a swimming pool on our property. But we do have a fundamental right to possess firearms.
As established in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, such as self-defense. Any state law impacting this right would be subject to judicial scrutiny and likely strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny is applied when a law impacts a fundamental right or involves a suspect classification. Such laws must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
While the right to bear arms is protected, the Supreme Court acknowledges that this right is not absolute and can be subject to regulations. Restrictions such as background checks and prohibitions for certain individuals (like felons or the mentally ill) have been upheld.
However there is legal precedent that excessive economic barriers to exercising a fundamental right can be problematic. For instance, in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections (1966), the Court struck down a poll tax as it constituted a barrier to the fundamental right to vote.
Given these principles, a mandatory $300,000 insurance policy could be seen as a substantial economic barrier to exercising the right to bear arms. The Court would likely assess whether the law is justifiable under strict scrutiny. If the state argues that the law serves public safety, the Court would consider whether it’s narrowly tailored to that interest.
If the requirement disproportionately affects lower-income individuals, the Court might view it as an undue burden on the fundamental right to bear arms, similar to how poll taxes were viewed as barriers to voting rights.
All of this is very stupid, and does not happen in normal liberal democracies
Ultimately we need to thank the Roberts Court for teaching Americans that previously established rulings can be overturned, a la Roe
I’m thinking when the pendulum swings back and liberals control the court, we’ll take a closer look at the part of the 2nd amendment that says ‘we’ll regulated’.
‘we’ll regulated’
Can you imagine the chaos if SCOTUS took a second look at the 2nd amendment (in the original document, for some reason… just go with it) and found an apostrophe?
It’s been chilling there since 1789. How is this the first time somebody noticed it? What tf is “a we’ll regulated militia” supposed to entail?? What will be the rippling effects on the state of national politics???
Find out on the next episode of Alternate History by a Pedantic Loser on Lemmy! (I’m sorry)
I mean there are spelling mistakes in the document I’m pretty sure ;p
Even if that potential court swing does happen, we will still be keeping the guns. Americans have 400 million or more of them already, in private hands, mostly unregistered.
I would personally never give up that right, regardless of the law. It’s a fundamental human right to self defense.
#1 cause of death for children is gunshot. Gotta do something about that even if it does mean you can’t have a tomahak missile to protect you from burglary.
That’s a very misleading fake statistic and if you look at the total number of children in the USA who are killed OR injured by firearms annually, it amounts to a tiny fraction of the overall population, and 99.9999% of children are not killed or injured by any firearm.
So I reject your tired “but think of the children” excuse to put any limits on the freedom of American citizens.
Anything that doesn’t confirm your bias is a misleading fake statistic. Also lol at the freedom thing because the guns are literally the excuse the government has used to create a massive police state where everything from middle schools to the post office has its own police force authorized to kill or arrest you and send you to do slave labor in the prison system.
It’s not the “gotcha” you might want it to be, for dry jurisprudence reasons.
If you take the originalist approach Scalia and Thomas advocate, the original intent as written meant not ‘control’ or ‘restriction’ but ‘orderly’ or ‘well provisioned’ when speaking of military units like armies and militias. No fun, that’s the sticky web we have currently so moving on
THEN you are left with the other end - interpretation using modern means. However there’s a problem here too, because the Bill of Rights follows a template for the text of each amendment outlining “the right of the people [to do X]” and courts have already interpreted that in amendments 1 through 9 that they secure individual rights. 2A has been agreed to be an individual right, just like the other eight, in major cases in 1931 under Miller, 2008 in Heller, and again and again at state and local court levels.
Go get an amendment and do it right, don’t gut the rest of the Bill of Rights. We undid prohibition, slavery, limited suffrage, etc
It doesn’t prevent you from keeping and bearing arms, it makes you responsible if you choose to carry a firearm with you, which isn’t a fundamental right and never has been.
It imposes a new financial and bureaucratic penalty on all who wish to exercise their fundamental right of self-defense in any area that is not their home. The text of the 2nd amendment does not say that the right to keep and bear arms shall be conditioned on compliance with everchanging insurance requirements. It says that it shall not be infringed.
I agree with your point. But our opinions don’t matter. There are 6 people on SCOTUS right now who will see this differently than us, and, ultimately, their opinions are the only ones that matter. And their opinions are not subject to appeal or oversight - they are absolute in matters of Constitutional interpretation.
We have a terrible system that is in need of drastic reform
Self defense with a gun is not a guaranteed right under the second amendment. It doesn’t say you have a right to carry a gun. The term “arms” has always had limitations as has the ability to carry a gun. The second amendment is not unlimited.
The justices you mention are anti second amendment, because they won’t allow guns into supreme court sessions.
Keep and bear arms
It’s literally right there bro
bear /bâr/
-
To carry (something) on one’s person from one place to another. “bore the suitcase to the station."
-
To move from one place to another while containing or supporting (something); convey or transport: “a train bearing grain.”
-
To cause to move by or with steady pressure; push. “a boat borne along by the current.”
You can bear a pitchfork. That’s an arm
If you want to bear a gun you need insurance. Not happy? Just bear a pitchfork.
Want to bear a nuclear warhead? Not available to the general population in the us yet. Is this infringing your rights? The constitution says you can bear arms, not that you should be allowed to bear whatever arms you want.
-
If the Constitution currently expresses a stronger, more irrevocable right to own firearms than to operate a motor vehicle, then it very much has its priorities out of whack, considering which one of those is more likely to be urgently needed by the populace. It needs to be changed. There’s a reason they’re called “Amendments”.
The Constitution is out of whack. But there is no express right to automobile travel contained therein; there is, however, an express right to firearm possession.
Formally amending the Constitutional is not possible given current political realities. The formal amendment process requires too high of a threshold than could ever be met in 2024
The easier way to amend the Constitution is through the informal process known as “stacking the Supreme Court with people who agree with your desired outcomes.” Republicans are very good at this.
Is it firearm, or just arm?
Here’s the problem…
We can require automobile insurance because driving a car isn’t a right.
Now, owning a gun is a right, and you could argue that wearing or carrying the gun is not, but then you have to go back to New York vs Bruen:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/20-843/
New York used to require special permission to wear or carry a gun. You had to provide special justification for your need to carry and “because I don’t feel safe” or “I want to defend myself” wasn’t good enough.
Supreme Court ruled:
“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.”
Given that, I can’t imagine they would hold an insurance requirement to be constitutional.
Should Alex Jones be forced to have liability insurance before spouting off conspiracy theories on InfoWars? Yeah, probably. But that’s not the way the first amendment works either.
Ahhh, the old “let’s make something a right that only the rich can afford.” For all the “eat the rich” rhetoric here, there seems to be a lot of desire to increase the class divide even more by limiting rights to how much money you have.
It’s already very difficult to nearly impossible to obtain a purchase and carry permit in the state since Maryland is “May issue” state and NOT a “Shall issue” state. This means you can be denied a permit at the whim of local law enforcement unless you have an “in” with whoever is in charge. This is purely performative theater to buy votes.
And the two groups that really should have liability insurance - drug gangs and law enforcement - will be completely unaffected by this requirement.
Just don’t bring your gun to your favorite walmart?..
You don’t have to bring the fucking thing around with you everywhere
You were never a boy scout were you? Ever heard of being prepared? Maybe the phrase “I’d rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it”? Bet the people in the Walmart shooting in Texas a few years ago wish they would have taken their gun into the Walmart.
“Being prepared” is running away. 100% of the time.
Those “good guys w/ a guy” stories are legit almost always an off-duty cop who knows how to handle the situation (and the gun)
You dweeb come-and-take-its don’t need it at a Walmart
almost always
So your advice to people in an active shooter situation is to always run? Not seek cover? Not stay low and observe the situation? Just run 100% of the time? I pray you don’t take your own advice.
Honest lol
It’s definitely odd seeing the crowd cheering for regulatory capture, that’s certain. Doubly infuriating because this kind of legislation will not solve problems, it’s virtue signaling to anti-gun donors and voters, that just pisses off everyone who has to live with it. How does insurance solve harm? It doesn’t, and I’d argue this is legally untested enough that a carrier can likely find ways to get out from paying.
There’s much better areas to start unraveling this issue, but they’re hard and don’t make quick headlines for clout:
- Expand the denied persons categories, including domestic violence, including cops
- Actually enforce sentencing for gun charges instead of pleading out, so ‘repeat offender’ laws actually work as designed
- Focus funding and diversion efforts at gang members who commit violence in communities, instead of broad, cosmetic centric bans
- Stop fetishizing guns as ‘manly’ or ‘powerful’ instead of just the deadly tools they are. Society shares blame here, but gun marketing absolutely took that an RAN with it
Focus funding and diversion efforts at gang members who commit violence in communities…
There it is lmao. Like gangs are the problem.
This isn’t the “racist found, we can dismiss everything said fellas” dog whistle you think it is.
Targeted programs that focus on individuals do exist, and are working. A small number of individuals commit an outsize percentage of the gun violence, so focusing on those people with non-policing efforts can have a large effect.
“It’s the black peoples fault”.
Half the American women murdered in their last decade were killed by their partner, but there’s no “funding and diversion efforts” for white guys who can’t control their emotions.
MD is Shall Issue now, thanks to Bruen. Still very hard to obtain a permit, as you require 16 hours of instruction, passing a live-fire exam, and paying about $200 in fees (on top of the $400 class).
That doesn’t sound that hard.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
TIL
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.
jeez it sure would be awkward if your argument made any sense. let me put it in caps for you. INHERENT THREAT.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
“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.
Oh damn you have to show basic competence with a deadly weapon before you’re allowed to take it home and cuddle it? What an authoritarian hellscape.
It’s already very difficult to nearly impossible to obtain a purchase and carry permit in the state since Maryland is “May issue” state and NOT a “Shall issue” state.
You almost make it sound like this is a bad thing?
If “performative theatre” upsets you, then the pro-gun side is not for you.
They crow about “keeping their family safe” but droves of children are blowing their brains out with their dads guns or dying screaming on their classroom floor.
They promise all the gun violence will be worth it because they’ll keep us safe from tyranny but they enthusiastically vote for authoritarian, far-right candidates running on a platform of “we will take away the rights of women and minorities”.
They promise they’re “responsible gun owners”, then staunchly oppose any measure that makes that responsibility a requirement, not a completely voluntary pinkie promise.
I see what they want to do: no sane insurance company will provide such contracts unless they either:
- make the customers pay exorbitant prices
- require background checks and do the control themselves
Any of those will of course disincentivize people from owning guns, which is a good thing, but it’s crazy that a state has to offload these controls to a private company because there is no political willingness to do it in the right way.
This solves nothing, except for the rich getting the sole prerogative to guns.
Personal liability insurance typically costs around $8 to $10 a year for every $100,000 in coverage https://www.policygenius.com/homeowners-insurance/what-is-personal-liability-insurance
Even if this source is off by a factor of 10, what person can purchase a $400+ firearm but can’t afford the same in yearly insurance?
Is that a fixed range, or will the cost just go up for the folk that some corporation thinks shouldn’t carry a gun?
The government should just do it’s fucking job and provide the insurance and background check. Its a bad move to relegate this to private parties. Atleast with the government the people can vote who is in power.
So you guys don’t have universal healthcare but it makes sense for the taxpayers to subsidise insurance and background checks so everyone can carry a gun and be happy, and sobthe the poor are not left out from this inalienable right that is carrying a gun in public like in the western movies?
It’s okay, Billy McFucksHisSister was kinda outgunned by “the gubmint’s” F-35s already I don’t think his walmart glock was anything the rich ever feared.
I’d to ask what should then we do in case of a dictatorship, for example? Just lay down and fear the F-35s?
Yes, even if everyone has a wallmat glock we’d outgunned by a mile by let’s say the military, but also you can’t just bomb and kill the shit out of your labor and infrastructure — I mean, you can, also you can bomb and kill enough to get them to submit, but that is just not something you can just keep doing indefinetly. It is also very hard to maintain a economy going with a big insurrection going and there is were guns bring a point, they give you at least a figthing chance, way better than nothing.
I’d also like to point out the ad hominem of calling the hypotetical gun owner a “McFucksHisSister” it brings nothing of value to the conversation.
I also do not belive carrying a gun around is something needed -by almost anyone- but ownership is important.
Also important to note is that the military is not some faceless automaton that does whatever they’re told. It’s very hard to justify killing the family and townspeople and neighbours of the people that you send to commit the killing. If we get to a state where it isn’t hard, we’re already lost as a people.
I’d like to agree with you, but given the experiences and horrors carried out by the military in my country (not the USA) I just can’t. I guess I agree with your last sentence, and I really hope you guys (whoever is reading) do better than us.
Don’t know about the US, but in most places the military wouldn’t send you tonserve or even less fight to, say, Shithole, Alabama if you are from there. Of course you wouldn’t shoot your uncle or brother. They figured this out centuries ago, before firearms.
Cope. Seethe.
No arguments: you cope.
They are using the anti-abortion strategy of finding a fairly strong argument and trying to maximize the ability of blocking something based on it. This will likely also fail like most of those attempts did.
what is the right way? carrying was almost impossible in MD before the Supreme Court ruling.
Something needs to be done but wow this feels like the worst way to go.
Oh you mean the way that let’s the monied ruling class stay armed while all the rest of us lowly poors can’t be. Surely that genius plan won’t ever backfire.
Surely that genius plan won’t ever backfire.
And the current gun laws haven’t backfired? The country is a fucking mess and none of the pro-gun promises have come true.
Authoritarians have never been more powerful and the guns have done nothing to stop them. The most effective way to keep your family safe is to just move to a wealthy country that doesn’t routinely arm domestic abusers, extremists and the deeply mentally ill with the weapons they need to quickly and efficiently kill anyone they want.
You’re not a champion of peoples rights, you’re a simp for the gun lobby with delusions of grandeur.
There’s a difference between bureaucratic bullshittery and willfully making things worse for one specific class.
And what is that difference?
Money generally.
So, let me see if I’ve got this right.
Maryland wants to have a privately-enforced tax on the exercise of a constitutional right. Do I have that more or less correct? Perhaps you could also have a requirement that all religious congregations or any kind have a $1B policy in case there is sexual misconduct by a member of the congregation?
A tax that disproportionally affects poor people. We wouldn’t want those people having guns, now would we?
I genuinely would. I believe that all people (that aren’t prohibited due to prior illegal violent actions) should be able to exercise their rights, if that is their choice. I don’t think people should be required to own firearms, any more than I think that anyone should be required to vote. But I don’t think that the state should be trying to prevent either. And it really pisses me off that gun owners in general want to close off exercise of rights to the “wrong” people, esp. non-white people, LGBTQ+ people, and anyone that’s to the political left of Benitto Mussolini.
Not the congregation, but perhaps the clergy should carry insurance. Especially if they’re part of a church that has a history of sexual assault in their organization
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
cultchurch, 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.)That is a very good perspective. Thank you for the thoughtful and reasoned perspective. You’ve given me many things to consider
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
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.
Yeah…about that
That is optional insurance, not mandated by a state law. You can already buy insurance (Edit: for firearms) to protect you in case of negligence, or prosecution for something you claim is self-defense.
Do I have that more or less correct?
Only if you believe it’s an individual right, which you can’t without ignoring half the amendment that creates it.
Well, yeah, actually I can, because of the history surrounding that text, and what it meant when it was written.
The part you are conveniently ignoring is the body of the constitution prior to the bill of rights that gives congress the power to raise an army, and to equip that army. If congress already has the power to raise an army/militia and provide arms for them, then why would you need an amendment saying that congress can’t pass laws to prevent itself from arming an army? (For your reference that is Article 1, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power … To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years …To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions … To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”
Moreover, when you look at the bill of rights, all of the rights are pertaining to individual people (or people and states, in the case of 10A). It’s pretty clear that the freedom of the press isn’t a collective right, but one that is an individual right.
Beyond that, you need to understand what they meant by militia; the militia was every able-bodied male below about 50 (not sure on the exact age cutoffs); in many cases they were legally obligated to provide their own arms (despite the constitution saying that the gov’t could pay for them), those arms were required to be militarily useful, and they were required to train both on their own and with other members of the militia.
Yawn. I’ve heard those arguments before and they’re all what I categorize as mental gymnastics.
This would go to the supreme court who would rule that restricting the right to bear arms to someone’s financial status is unconstitutional or some shit.
My constitutional right to an AR 15 depends on my ability to pay $2,000 or whatever they cost. Not in my budget. The old bank account needs more freedoms it seems.
This is a joke, but seriously though - how is affordability an argument when guns also cost money?
Not every gun is $2,000. A Taurus is $<300
And your right to bear arms is irrespective of the cost of a gun. Inheritance, gifts, etc.
sure 2 grand is a lot of money, but dont go and tell me your car is affordable because you spent 10 grand on it.
Or that your house was worth the money, or whatever place you rent currently, or all those things that you probably pay for monthly.
It’s a one time cost, for a weapon, that if correctly maintained will last basically forever.
Reasonable vs unreasonable expense. You need to buy a gun, ammunition, and a training course? Not a problem. You need to buy a gun, ammo, and a $300k golden stamp, that’s not fine, because it is prohibitively expensive.
If this type of insurance is illegal or prohibitively expensive, then this will be struck down. If not, it might be permitted, or it might not. The supreme court is extremely conservative right now, so I suspect it would be struck down regardless.
a $300k golden stamp
$300k of liability insurance does not cost $300k. That’s literally the point of insurance.
That should be part of a citizenship test. If you fail, you should probably not be allowed to own a gun. Or vote.
I picked an arbitrary number, which happened to match the article. I am aware $300k insurance doesn’t cost $300k.
Your case is for reasonable vs unreasonable expenses though. When someone can afford thousands for a gun and many other recurring expenses, a $50-100/month policy is completely reasonable. At the very least, it doesn’t separate gun ownership into different wealth classes.
You think 50 dollars a month isn’t a lot for poor people?
$600 /year fee
“completely reasonable”
Please put down the internet and bring that talk to some poors, I guarantee that you’ll get laughed at openly
I think you are both massively overestimating how expensive gun ownership is, and underestimating how narrow many people’s finances are.
Guns start under $200. $500 or $600 will get you most whatever you want used or from a budget brand.
And there is a noteworthy segment of the population that could not afford $100 every month. Probably not enough for the supreme court to care, but enough to be a troubling precedent.
So is your right to food though. No ones legally bound to give you food if you don’t make enough money. Thank goodness people do, but that’s not because of any type of law requiring them to do so. Theres nothing on the books that would make it illegal to allow people to starve. Furthermore, all rights are dependent on money because who’s going to stop violating the righrs of someone who cannot sue them?
Really?
How is affordability a concern for insulin, when it also costs money?
Obviously one is a medical necessity and the other is not. But the point carries.
Lawful users of firearms are disproportionately affected by this, compared to the murderer that’s getting their firearms illicitly.
It’s not solving a problem, it’s pushing the accessibility further away from the common man. Bit by bit.
Well it is. If you’re going to let everyone have guns, you shouldn’t restrict ownership based on who can afford insurance on it.
I don’t think any private citizen should be able to own guns anyway though.
I agree that individuals shouldn’t own guns.
I think the second amendment should always been about the right to have state organized militias. I think that is a fair thing to have to avoid tyranny. The convoluted mess of a legal argument that judges have stood up to justify everyone having guns is just insane to me. The ultra minority who have easy access to guns and shoot people up… every single week… is not worth the benefit of having 60% right side hearing loss by 40 like my gun loving friends in the midwest.
Have people in the Midwest never heard of hearing protection or something? I was raised in a rural area and did target and clay shooting a lot. I always wore hearing protection, and my ears work just fine now.
I most definitely agree with your ideas on state militias, especially in more populated areas. I think at least hunting rifles and shotguns should be available to people living in rural areas.
A good point in on your ears…but here’s my counterpoint: protecting yourself is stoopid.
You want gun nuts to wear earplugs at the range, can’t even get them to wear a damn cloth over their face in an ER waiting room.
Yea, I will definitely concede that gun culture is toxic and stupid and seems to attract more assholes than not.
Are we going to start with the police?
Disarm the poors! Only our oppressors should have the option of lethal self-defense!
Ah yes. America. The only country in the world where it’s expected that everyone has a gun and can carry it every where they go.
Not the only one, somalia too.
And instead of complaining for the lack of healthcare, they cry because they are going to tax your Colt and you are not allowed to take it to the supermarket anymore.
fr
Idk I need to get insurance for my car because it might hurt someone. I think this makes sense and is a good step. You have a right to own guns but no one said it would be cheap.
If you are poor buying a gun should not be your priority anyways. why do poor people need guns? It’s not like they are going out hunting for their food still.
It’s obvious you’ve never lived in the hood lol. Poor income areas usually have the highest crime and often little to no police presence.
I’ve lived in the hood. BRANDISHING which is what this law for, would have you shot dead. Get the fuck outta here.
Does it say I need insurance to own a shotgun, that is kept in my home? Because thats what I’d be using if I lived in the hood and felt afraid in my home
Many people who conceal carry and actually train with their firearms can draw and fire in about 1.5 seconds. That is fast enough that you won’t be shot dead in a lot of situations.
Brandishing is dumb. If someone is going to draw their firearm, it should only ever be in a life or death situation, and they should be justified in using it immediately.
Open carry is also just a bad idea everywhere, not just the hood.
1.5 seconds or not, now everyone knows you own a gun. A gun will never improve a situation.
You are right that guns rarely improve a situation, but sometimes we have to deal with the fact that we live in a cruel world where a lot of people carry guns and are desperate enough to use them on people.
Personally, if I was being robbed and was conceal carrying, I would do everything I could to not escalate the situation. I would just slowly give them my stuff. But if I am trapped in a building with a mass shooter or something, I would rather try to defend my family and myself rather than just waiting to be executed.
I respect your viewpoint on it, though.
I don’t believe, and also hope for your own sake, that a situation never arises where you need one. You have every right to be able to do so. In fact, this bill only makes it so in the event something goes wrong; insurance has got you covered.
Brandishing and carrying are not the same thing.
Open carrying in the hood is a great way to get shot. Being open about your weapons in the hood is a great way to get robbed.
Semantics.
If it came to you having to use your weapon in the first place, then you’re already dead. This bill is a good first step in curbing our rampant gun issues.
This law would also affect concealed carry no?
I never said anything about brandishing. I was responding to the above comment saying poor people don’t need to buy a gun.
No one needs a gun, but another barrier to entry is a plus in my book.
Idk I lived in Baltimore for a while. I definitely felt more safe when guns weren’t around
Idk I need to get insurance for my car because it might hurt someone. I think this makes sense and is a good step. You have a right to own guns but no one said it would be cheap.
This brings up a whole other tangent that I’ll ignore for now (the necessity of needing a car and it not being a right, and having to pay for it) – but a dangerous item/toy etc and a gun, i.e. a fundamantal means of self defense, should be treated differently by law in a country that claims to be free.
Nobody should be carrying as a routine.
Ideally, but shits crazy. I’m a transgender woman and like a third of this country proudly wants me dead and some of them are willing to make it happen.
Is your gun keeping a third of your country at bay?
Ya, I brandished my weapon and 100 million people said “whoa there partner!”.
If they see you with a firearm, it will be all these excuse they need.
Don’t fall for the pro-gun bullshit. Equal access to firearms means nothing because violence always favors the biggest asshole.
Don’t tell transwomen how to live their lives. Whatever you are, you do not live up to your username.
Whiteknighting without adding anything? Should transwomen be allowed to say anything, and no one can disagree?
Spare me the feigned alliance. You’re rushing to defend the gun lobby, not the trans community.
LoL, is that all you’ve got left? You think conservatives ever encourage armed transpersons? After all I said to you, the courtesy I extended, you think it was all just bad faith? I wasn’t even rude. You’re as dense as any conservative. Read my history.
What do you think John Brown would say to you? He was an agitator.
Why would they care? They’re making millions of dollars off “armed leftists” who aren’t the slightest threat to them.
They put $16 million of those profits each year into the pockets of the most far-right Republicans running.
The far-right shitheads you’re enabling go on monthly killing sprees targeting minorities. Meanwhile, whats your Nazi body count? Zero?
Do you need some names and addresses? I can hook you up. I’m talking swastika tattoo, mask off, proud boys.
Face it, everything you’re doing is working out great for fascists. You couldn’t have been more help if you joined them.
But it’s all worth it right, because now the trans community is… oh, much less safe and accepted than they would be in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK and most of Europe.
So long as there are actual Nazis around, there exists a strong argument for it.
Nazis that have all the guns they could ever want and routinely go on killing sprees with them.
So what exactly is the argument? That maybe one day, the gun laws that armed Nazis might disarm Nazis, even though they’he completely failed to for their last 5 years?
Stop falling for bullshit gun-lobby marketing.
Fine, you can choose to be utterly helpless when the nazis break down your door, and you will then go wherever they tell you. But at that point you can feel free to stop pretending you own the high road. And stop telling those of us who would fight back effectively that we have no such right.
The gun lobby absolutely does not market to people like me. Gun laws will never disarm nazis, only the minorites they wish to oppress.
This law isn’t about having guns in your house. It’s about having guns at the movie theater.
Thanks for sharing your little hero fantasy with us but you and your guns have done absolutely fuck all to shield anyone from Nazis.
But at that point you can feel free to stop pretending you own the high road
Sounds like the day you’ve lost the high road, not me. You were going to shoot all the Nazis dead with your cool guns remember? Now they’re marching people off to camps.
It’s such a difficult line of bullshit to work with isn’t it? You need to proclaim the Nazis are coming, and that only guns can stop them, but they can’t stop you with their guns, that they purchased from the same store, under the same gun-lobby authored laws.
And stop telling those of us who would fight back effectively that we have no such right.
Oh you’re going to “fight back effectively” are you? So share with us all what your skills are. We don’t know for certain they include “able to safely possess a competently use a firearm” because they’re pro-gun community insist that shouldn’t be a requirement.
Tell us all about the soldier these dead kids have bought us. Do you have any skills besides “gun”? Any military training? Can you set up a secure communication network? Are you able to administer basic first aid? Can you fly a drone? Fuck, tell us what you weigh.
Convince us that the fattest, shittest, most entitled army the world has ever seen is going to keep us safe from the people they almost certainly voted for.
It’s so strange that you think armed leftists have anything in common with your fairly accurate image of right wing chuds.
It is not the job of armed leftists to shield you from nazis. That job is for you and your mighty pens. Great job on that, by the way.
None of us have ever claimed to be heroes who are gonna kill all the nazis with our big bad guns. Self defense is not an offensive act. There are no nazis currently breaking in my door to drag me away. Do you expect me to go out seeking murder? Hell no. Now is the time to dismantle their propaganda networks, prosecute their leaders, bankrupt those who fund them, raise the minimum wage, establish single payer healthcare, safeguard human rights, separate church and state, and once and for all make bigotry and hate speech utterly illegal. We had best get on that.
No armed leftist has ever advocated for untrained irresponsible gun ownership.
You talk as if you think I expect to survive a Nazi coup. That world is not worth living in. Such a battle may very well be hopeless, but if your politicians fail to prevent it, it must be fought. No, I have no unprovable claims of competency for you to ridicule. I have nothing to prove. I’m not a badass. I expect to ensure that I do not go where they tell me. Rather the opposite.
Despite being a socialist, I have never voted for anyone except Democrats since 2000. You’re welcome.
I see you still have offered no viable solutions. I hope your pen is sharp.
It’s so strange that you think armed leftists have anything in common with your fairly accurate image of right wing chuds
Sure they do – their opinions came out of the same sleazy boardrooms dedicated to maximising profits. They just replaced the conservative shit like “god” and “nuclear family” with “minorities” and you lapped it up just as eagerly.
It is not the job of armed leftists to shield you from nazis. That job is for you and your mighty pens. Great job on that, by the way.
Good to hear you admitting you’re going to do fuck all except push hollow rhetoric.
But hey if you want me and my pen to stop the Nazis firing semi-automatic rifles into crowds of innocent people, we’re happy to write up the new gun laws to prevent it.
At the very least, you could stop bankrolling the pro-gun lobby and their army of lawyers. Maybe you could skip the middleman and just donate $16 million a year directly to Republicans?
None of us have ever claimed to be heroes who are gonna kill all the Nazis with our big bad guns. Self defense is not an offensive act.
A comment that doesn’t even hold true in this single comment section, let alone the rolling plains of AstroTurf that “leftist gun owners” call home.
No armed leftist has ever advocated for untrained irresponsible gun ownership.
I started to reply to this but then I realized just how fucking slimey it is. You’ve carefully positioned yourself to claim “even though we demand that training and responsibility remain entirely optional, a true leftist advocates gun safety”.
Presumably by tutting at people on the internet.
Nobody should be carrying.
Guns are practical tools in rural areas. In town though? Nah.
When they say “our democracy is at stake,” they don’t mean all Americans. They mean them and their friends’.
And how many guns have you donated to the homeless? You’re absolutely fine with gun ownership having a cost, as long as you can afford it.
Another right-wing bill that gives the rich power over poor, disguised as left-wing bill. All politicians in power are rich, which is why they always push for right-wing politics, democrat or republican, always end up against the working class. There is a good video about this.
