MicroWaveFeb 1, 2024

Maryland bill would force gun owners to get $300K liability insurance to wear or carry

https://lemmy.world/post/11442345

Maryland bill would force gun owners to get $300K liability insurance to wear or carry - Lemmy.World

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.

Show threadjordanlundFeb 1, 2024

Here’s the problem…

We can require automobile insurance because driving a car isn’t a right.

Now, owning a gun is a right, and you could argue that wearing or carrying the gun is not, but then you have to go back to New York vs Bruen:

supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/20-843/

New York used to require special permission to wear or carry a gun. You had to provide special justification for your need to carry and “because I don’t feel safe” or “I want to defend myself” wasn’t good enough.

Supreme Court ruled:

“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.”

Given that, I can’t imagine they would hold an insurance requirement to be constitutional.

Should Alex Jones be forced to have liability insurance before spouting off conspiracy theories on InfoWars? Yeah, probably. But that’s not the way the first amendment works either.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022)

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett: New York's requirement that an applicant for an unrestricted license to “have and carry” a concealed pistol or revolver must prove "a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community” is unconstitutional.

Justia Law
Show threadGiddyGapFeb 2, 2024
None of those other amendment rights are an inherent physical danger to innocent people. The Second Amendment is.
Show threadtime_lordFeb 2, 2024

But it’s not like insurance is going to help. If you buy a gun that gets used in a shooting, it’s still used in a shooting. The only difference is that someone might get money, but it doesn’t actually solve any problem.

What it does do is place a regressive tax on gun ownership.

Show threadTrainguyromFeb 2, 2024

The insurance should encourage responsible gun ownership. Insurance companies can easily adjust premiums based on training/licensing and premiums would be higher or lower depending on their risk calculation for the given type of weapon. Insurance can place extra requirements on storage and transport that might go well beyond the scope of what’s allowed by law.

A cheap insurance plan would likely have more restrictions than an expensive one, plus your premiums would skyrocket after an incident, further encouraging responsible behavior

Show threadthoughtorgan

There’s literally FUCKING LAWS requiring you to be responsible.

You’re a fucking idiot if you think INSURANCE PREMIUMS are the solution to violence.

Like anybody who has murder in their heart will think twice because of an extra fee tacked on.

Feb 4, 2024 at 8:22pmWeb
Show threadTrainguyromFeb 5, 2024

Insurance can have additional requirements beyond the law. For example my homeowner’s insurance does not allow trampolines on the property. There’s no law against trampolines but my homeowner’s insurance made the determination that a trampoline is too big of a risk for them.

This is why I said:

Insurance can place extra requirements…that might go well beyond the scope of what’s required by law.