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.

  • olivebranch@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    5 months ago

    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.

    • Reddfugee42@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      If the statistics show what gun fanatics claim, that guns keep people safer, then our capitalist market will compete down to a very low price because it won’t be expensive for the insurers. Econ 101.

      • olivebranch@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        5 months ago

        It keeps the rich safer from the working class to rebel against them. This bill only makes more of a gap and gives more power to the rich, over the poor.

        • EatATaco
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          I think your position would have more bite if it was based solely on ownership, but it’s about carry. If it gets to the point of rich people and poor people shooting at each other in the streets, it won’t matter much what the law is on this and people will be bringing their guns out.

          • olivebranch@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            When black panters were around, they would just carry the weapons, to show that if some white nationalist attack, they will not just sit there. Now whenever cops see someone marching with a gun, to protect the union strike or whatever, they can just arrest them, without any shooting even occurring. While anyone backed by the rich, will be able to pass by police with AR 15 with no problem. Just imagine two groups that started as a peacful protest being face to face, while one group is heavily armed and other is not.

            • EatATaco
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              If the issue is that the police are going to favor the rich, it matters not what the law is, as that same example you just gave could be true regardless of this insurance law.

              • olivebranch@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                5 months ago

                This bill is making it legal to favor the rich. They can stop everyone and ask for papers, but those who represent the interest of the capitalist class will be able to have them, while the working class won’t.

                • EatATaco
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  I get that it favors the rich because it costs money. The original claim is that this is some protection of the rich, which I disagree with, because it only applies to carry. And, no, they won’t be able to just stop anyone, the 4th amendment still would exist.

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

                    “they won’t be able to just stop anyone, the 4th amendment still would exist.”

                    Oh my sweet summer child…

                    Off the top of my head: -DWB (driving while black) -Stop and frisk -“I thought I saw drugs” probable cause abuses -probably 10 others that I missing

    • DAMunzy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      That’s my feeling too. I like the immediate thought about requiring insurance but thinking further I see the negatives too.