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.

  • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    9 months ago

    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).

    • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

          • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            9 months ago

            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.