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.

  • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    11 months ago

    It doesn’t prevent you from keeping and bearing arms, it makes you responsible if you choose to carry a firearm with you, which isn’t a fundamental right and never has been.

    • beardown@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      It imposes a new financial and bureaucratic penalty on all who wish to exercise their fundamental right of self-defense in any area that is not their home. The text of the 2nd amendment does not say that the right to keep and bear arms shall be conditioned on compliance with everchanging insurance requirements. It says that it shall not be infringed.

      I agree with your point. But our opinions don’t matter. There are 6 people on SCOTUS right now who will see this differently than us, and, ultimately, their opinions are the only ones that matter. And their opinions are not subject to appeal or oversight - they are absolute in matters of Constitutional interpretation.

      We have a terrible system that is in need of drastic reform

      • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        Self defense with a gun is not a guaranteed right under the second amendment. It doesn’t say you have a right to carry a gun. The term “arms” has always had limitations as has the ability to carry a gun. The second amendment is not unlimited.

        The justices you mention are anti second amendment, because they won’t allow guns into supreme court sessions.

        • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Keep and bear arms

          It’s literally right there bro

          bear /bâr/

          • To carry (something) on one’s person from one place to another. “bore the suitcase to the station."

          • To move from one place to another while containing or supporting (something); convey or transport: “a train bearing grain.”

          • To cause to move by or with steady pressure; push. “a boat borne along by the current.”

          • SkippingRelax@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            You can bear a pitchfork. That’s an arm

            If you want to bear a gun you need insurance. Not happy? Just bear a pitchfork.

            Want to bear a nuclear warhead? Not available to the general population in the us yet. Is this infringing your rights? The constitution says you can bear arms, not that you should be allowed to bear whatever arms you want.