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.

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

    But it’s not like insurance is going to help. If you buy a gun that gets used in a shooting, it’s still used in a shooting. The only difference is that someone might get money, but it doesn’t actually solve any problem.

    What it does do is place a regressive tax on gun ownership.

    • GiddyGap
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Monetary compensation for harm is very common in our society. E.g. that why a person who commits sexual assault pays compensation to the victim. Didn’t solve the problem, but it compensates an innocent victim. Same in a shooting.

    • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      The insurance should encourage responsible gun ownership. Insurance companies can easily adjust premiums based on training/licensing and premiums would be higher or lower depending on their risk calculation for the given type of weapon. Insurance can place extra requirements on storage and transport that might go well beyond the scope of what’s allowed by law.

      A cheap insurance plan would likely have more restrictions than an expensive one, plus your premiums would skyrocket after an incident, further encouraging responsible behavior

      • thoughtorgan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        There’s literally FUCKING LAWS requiring you to be responsible.

        You’re a fucking idiot if you think INSURANCE PREMIUMS are the solution to violence.

        Like anybody who has murder in their heart will think twice because of an extra fee tacked on.

        • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Insurance can have additional requirements beyond the law. For example my homeowner’s insurance does not allow trampolines on the property. There’s no law against trampolines but my homeowner’s insurance made the determination that a trampoline is too big of a risk for them.

          This is why I said:

          Insurance can place extra requirements…that might go well beyond the scope of what’s required by law.