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.

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    Problem. That entire ruling was based off the idea that there was no such regulations in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Except it was an extremely common regulation. And even in that paragraph they lie. Try having a protest without a permit. Ask them how many times the government is allowed to put someone on trial. Ask them about the 4th amendment right against illegal searches and seizures, specifically Civil Asset Forfeiture, where you have to request the government to give you your stuff back that was seized without any due process. I could keep going.

    A SCOTUS that lies to itself and the world for ideological purposes is not an authority on our rights.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Just because you don’t recognize their authority doesn’t mean they aren’t the authority though, at least until the composition changes again.

      This is why it’s going to be so important to have a Democratic President in when Thomas and Alito leave the court, they are the two oldest members and it could happen in either the '24 or '28 terms.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Well yeah, granted. It just chafes me every time someone uses SCOTUS as an authority after Robert’s court has spent that last couple decades chipping away at our rights.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Roberts always struck me as partially reasonable. He has a huge blind spot when it came to the voting rights act and Citizens United, but he’s not that extreme all the time.

          The court didn’t REALLY turn until the Trump appointees, who all need to be removed.