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.
Your case is for reasonable vs unreasonable expenses though. When someone can afford thousands for a gun and many other recurring expenses, a $50-100/month policy is completely reasonable. At the very least, it doesn’t separate gun ownership into different wealth classes.
You think 50 dollars a month isn’t a lot for poor people?
If you can afford a $300 Taurus and $20 worth of ammo every other month, you can afford $600 a year to keep it insured!!!
/s
Please put down the internet and bring that talk to some poors, I guarantee that you’ll get laughed at openly
They probably can review their budget and decide owning a gun is not that important, along with cancelling Netflix? Is that such a big deal?
The point is that as presently interpreted, gun ownership is an individual right that like the rest of the bill of rights, subjects any restriction against that right to ‘strict scrutiny’. Just like free speech or voting. The government cannot charge a fee to vote or hold a college debate, this also is well settled case law.
Can’t believe I’m arguing laws on lemmy, I’m neither a lawyer nor American nor i really know much on the subject, shooting in the dark… Is gun ownership of “bearing arms” that is an individual right tho?
Can’t afford to insure an f-16 doesn’t mean that I’m entitled to own one or that the government is restricting me.
If you can’t afford insurance on a gun you can always excercise your god given rights with a different weapon, leave the house with a knife, a stick or a fork and use them to defend your township
Yes, the courts have throughout history ruled 2A as an individual right.
An F-16 is absolutely unaffordable, but that’s not because the government added a tax. Flying lessons and pilots license are required for all flying, and flying is not an individual right.
Why are “the poors” buying expensive guns? If you’re buying a tool that can accidentally and instantly murder someone very easily, and you have no way to pay for that mistake, then gun ownership is too expensive for you.
“Undue” is a word with a huge range of meaning though. You’re buying a device whose sole purpose is to kill or injure, and it’s exceptionally good at doing those things accidentally. If you want to own a device like that, accident insurance is not all undue.
In fact it’s kinda surprising that people can get guns without it. I feel like in an alternate universe where gun insurance was the norm, people would think it’s insane to remove that requirement. It’s a requirement for cars which are now less deadly than guns and arguably way more important to people’s survival, but people think gun ownership is such a marker of liberty that they’re willing to put the rest of society at risk for it.
I think you are both massively overestimating how expensive gun ownership is, and underestimating how narrow many people’s finances are.
Guns start under $200. $500 or $600 will get you most whatever you want used or from a budget brand.
And there is a noteworthy segment of the population that could not afford $100 every month. Probably not enough for the supreme court to care, but enough to be a troubling precedent.