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.

  • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Lol reread the article, this is for carrying, brandishing is what is known as a “criminal offense” and is “not covered by such liability insurance.” You want “insurance” against your literal crimes get a lawyer on retainer, but I know you’re just conflating carrying concealed, laugably, or open, with brandishing, which by all definitions involved particularly the legal (i.e important) ones, they are not the same thing.

    • Zoot@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      My comment was directed at the person claiming having a gun in the hood is a necessity and that this bill stops them from that.

      I said brandishing because if you have a gun in the hood, whether or not its tucked in your shorts, holstered and concealed as is legal, or hanging from your balls out in the open, its a bad fucking idea.

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        My comment was directed at the person claiming having a gun in the hood is a necessity and that this bill stops them from that.

        Right, but you were the only person in the entire thread to mention brandishing, the comment you replied to is in relation to carrying, open or concealed, as is the article, and the law itself that we’re discussing, keep up buddy. Also:

        I’ve lived in the hood. BRANDISHING which is what this law for, would have you shot dead. Get the fuck outta here.

        Your comment was directed at him, but about this law, which is what I’m correcting you on.

        The hood being underpoliced and over-crimed necessitates the occasional defense of oneself, and the carrying required to do so. You can feel whatever way you want to about that, but sometimes it does have to happen, and does happen, regularly.