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.

  • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
    01·
    11 months ago

    No, they provide a good, and for that they deserve to be compensated for their time and materials if you so choose to support their business.

    I’m loving watching you awkwardly try and reconcile “I am a defender of the poor” while also simping for neoliberalism.

    You see the people who work for these companies and yes even the owners typically like things like “food” or “housing,” (I know, what needy little bitches, huh? Food AND shelter?)

    You don’t even know who the owners are do you? They’re not wanting for food nor shelter.

    Just quit while you’re behind. You’re not advocating that the gun companies divert their funds, as your comment would suggest.

    Nope, I’m not advocating that, I’m openly mocking you. Good that you finally noticed.

    You’re advocating that people, including poor people, pay $50 a month that they didn’t need to just to have the right to protect themselves from victimization.

    Yep, we’ve already covered that. Poor people couldn’t afford guns and you didn’t even pretend to care, let alone do anything about it. Now you don’t want to pay a subscription fee for your guns so you’re pretending it’s because you’re a hero to the poor.

    Healthcare is a service not a good. Jesus christ you’re stupid.

    As is liabilty insurance.

    Maybe you should stick to the opinions the gun lobby feeds you.

    • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      1·
      11 months ago

      My guy this is simply the way the world currently works, ducking your head in the sand to pretend you win an internet argument isn’t only sad, it’s also ineffective. Ok great, let’s pretend I don’t give a fuck about myself the poor, this law still effects us more than the rich, and you know that, which is why your entire stupid argument is based on “me not caring” not “me actually being incorrect.” You’re fooling nobody.

      why aren’t the owners wanting food? Because they can afford it? How do they get their money? OH YEAH, selling product.

      I’ve been mocking you this whole time too, na na na na boo boo.

      Poor people can save up, I did, $20 bucks a check for a year. One time payment of $500 is cheaper than years of recurring monthly payments. Could you drop $50 a month and just be fine? I can’t even afford netflix my dude, must be nice in your ivory tower.

      Of course, the government isn’t forcing you to get healthcare (or they didn’t used to anyway, but I disagree with that too.)

      • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
        11·
        11 months ago

        Of course, the government isn’t forcing you to get healthcare (or they didn’t used to anyway, but I disagree with that too.)

        They’re not forcing you too buy a gun either clown.

        You just say whatever melodramatic shit enters your head.