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.

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

    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.

    • Steve@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      Ok, I’ll try a better analogy. Why not require fist-punching insurance for anyone who wants to take their hands out in public?

      • jennwiththesea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • GooseFinger@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          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.