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.

    • Steve@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Its cheap because theres almost no risk. Tiger attack insurance is very cheap in the US too.

      So whats the point? Insurance cant possibly solve any actual problems associated with gun violence.

      • jennwiththesea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I would bet that tiger attack insurance for someone who brings a tiger with then in public would be astronomical.

        The point is to put the burden of cost where it actually belongs. Instead of society footing the bill, now gun owners will pay into an insurance system that will cover costs in the event of damage.

      • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Well the liability aspect does include some risk.

        It also depends if it’s on the weapon or person.

        Specifically if the gun insured is used in a crime or to cause see harm. It doesn’t have to be the most extreme scenario.

        If it’s per gun, that could easily be hundreds or thousands per month per gun hoarder.

      • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        You are walking around with a deadly weapon. We test, register, and insure people who drive around with a deadly weapon.

        Nothing about the 2A says you do not assume liability for exercising your right. ain fact, all of US case on this would say the opposite. You absolutely assume liability for both what you do with your weapons, and what you fail to do with your weapons.