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.

  • thoughtorgan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    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.

    • SkippingRelax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      As a non American. Why the fuck do you need access to an ar15 or whatever that was in the first place though. Normal people would think that pushing accessibility away from the common man is a fucking good thing! Are you also interested in getting your hands on chemical weapons while we are at it? do you see it as a problem when your government is trying to limit access to mustard gas or chlorine gas for the common man?

      Bit by bit, these bills could help the US to get into the 20th century and start to catch up with Western world civilization.

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

        It’s a gun?

        There’s nothing special about an AR-15. It’s 2023, detachable magazine and rail mounts are not some whacky new technology.

        You’re incredibly uneducated about firearms, their features and effectiveness. It shows. Retards like you trying to pass legislation on something you know nothing about is how we got to where we are.

        You’re afraid of a big black gun with optics and a laser. Not realizing a rifle from the early 1900’s compares reasonably well ballistically with a modern rifle. A fucking shotgun used for hunting is really just as deadly as an AR-15 in the grand scheme of things.

        There’s more guns in America than people. The cats out the fucking bag. You’re never going to see reduction in ownership, it just isn’t happening.

        We’re (common man) limited federally to semi automatic only. It’s been that way for ages. Only military and certain police agencies can get fully automatic firearms.

        I need access because I don’t trust cops to protect me. I want to be self sufficient, I want to be able to protect myself.

        You enjoy being not responsible for your own safety. I don’t.

        • SkippingRelax@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          It’s actually because of retards like you that YOU collectively are where YOU are. I’m not there with you, I live in a place where my kids don’t have to do drills at school for shootings. But sure you know better because you know something about firearms.

          What I really enjoy is to live in a safe place. You are not romantically responsible for your own safety as you like to think, you are just a pathetic wannabe cowboy.

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

            How can you realistically make the argument that someone who knows nothing about something can make a proper decision about it.

            You’re fixated on AR-15’s, which is tech from the 1960’s. There’s so many comparable options it’s laughable.

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

              What an interesting angle. I don’t know much about guns technical details, I know about banning firearms. The country I live in did it and was successful at it, you gin nuts keep hiding behind minutiae.

              I’m not fixated on ar15. I mentioned it just because the guy above me did. All guns should be banned from the US, more clear now?

      • barsoap
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Also non-American here and I have indeed eyed an AR-15 once or twice. That’d be contingent on me getting a hunting license, though, and while I’d like to it’s probably something for retirement.

        Why AR-15? Semi-auto, reliable, very accurate. “But it’s a weapon of war” a) no it isn’t, it just looks like one because it’s modern and b) your grandpa’s Mauser 98 is a weapon of war, it probably even was on the front!

      • HACKthePRISONS@kolektiva.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        >Bit by bit, these bills could help the US to get into the 20th century and start to catch up with Western world civilization.

        what does “under no pretext” mean?