Maryland bill would force gun owners to get $300K liability insurance to wear or carry | WBFF
foxbaltimore.com
As the bill is currently written, local and state law enforcement officers are not exempt from the insurance requirement.

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.

  • aesthelete@lemmy.world
    35·
    11 months ago

    I agree that their interpretation would work that way, however, I don’t see how they can pretend their interpretation of the second amendment is anything like that of the first. They restrict time and place of first amendment rights constantly. The government can make you get a permit in order to hold a demonstration on public land. There are “free speech zones”, and things like protests of pipelines are broken up by the government all of the time.

    I know we shouldn’t expect consistency from this bunch of looney tunes, but I still think it’s worth pointing out that they’re not being consistent at all.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
      101·
      11 months ago

      Well, the 2nd is restricted similarly. For example, even with a permit, you can’t carry concealed in a courtroom. The waiver is for “in general”.

    • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
      31·
      11 months ago

      I agree that their interpretation would work that way, however, I don’t see how they can pretend their interpretation of the second amendment is anything like that of the first

      Unfortunately, the highest law of the land disagrees with your interpretation at this time. They have this whole “plain meaning of words” mindset. The typical 3rd grader reading the 2nd Amendment would think “oh ok, I can have a gun”. Therefore, that’s what the 2nd Amendment means now.

      They restrict time and place of first amendment rights constantly.

      Yeah, that’s covered by jurisprudence based around the needs of the country. And the law is right that the First Amendment doesn’t say the freedom of speech is the freedom to disrupt (preventing people from going to their destination, vandalizing property, etc). But if you needed to buy Free Speech Insurance, that would get shot down as unconstitutional.