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.
Well, lying on that form while showing ID and fooling the FBI’s instant background check is hard, yes. I like how you consistently ignore the literal FBI saying “yeah he’s clear” and continue to push “it’s just paper bro.” It’s cute, really, you’re the only one who believes yourself.
Well give people access to NICs then. Btw it’s illegal to sell to a prohibited possessor, so you better be careful selling to strangers, PS is supposed to be between people you know fairly well and if you sell to a stranger with a felony record you get punished as well. Most people selling to strangers only will if they show a CCW permit, even for rifles, because to get those permits you have to pass a NICs check as well so it works as a proxy.
But by all means keep pretending. Hey quick question, you ever even been to the US?
I can agree with you there, procedures* btw, but it isn’t the gun laws I want changed, I want better enforcement of other laws that would preclude one from firearms ownership. For instance Parkland, Broward Co had received upwards of 44 calls about Cruz before the shooting, many of which could have given him enough of a record to be denied in NICs, but they didn’t do their fucking job. There was also a church shooting in Texas where an ex Air Force guy who had been Dishonorably Discharged (which bans them from guns) hadn’t had the DD inputted into NICs and he was able to get it, the Air Force should have done their job and reported it to NICs. Thankfully a guy across the street heard the shots and ran over with his rifle to kill the shooter. Furthermore I think the best way to address our gun violence is addressing the underlying issues. It’s harder, but the payoff is greater, and we’ll have to fix them anyway e>!!<ventually because gun violence isn’t the only problem created by things like wealth inequality.
LOL no, you’re the one crying about how buying guns is buying from right wingers, the problem is yours. I’m chillin lol. My suggestion that “you should open up DemGunWorld®™” is what we refer to in the business as “flippant.”
I couldn’t find if anyone does track it but they have proposed tracking it in 2011:
“As it’s proposed, the ‘Ammonium Nitrate Security Program’ would require those who purchase, sell or transfer at least 25 pounds of the chemical in the U.S. to register with the government so that they may be screened against U.S. terror watch lists,”
So even if they do track it, buy 20lbs, wait a while, buy 20lbs, wait a while…
Looks like that may have died though, latest I can find is from 2011 proposing it, I think nobody does. Would have been DHS btw not FBI.
…so you ARE stupid? It is literally the same people who write and inforce gun laws. You think we have a special “gun law only” congress and police forces/agencies? And as I’ve said I’m pretty sure that proposed regulation never went anywhere.
Have reasonable suspicion, not know. But that’s a risk you can take for yourself, people have been charged. I for one am not stupid enough to take it. May work out fine, may get a prison tour and your rights to guns and voting stripped, the trade off for “making $500” isn’t worth it.
See heres the issue with that, you likely think that a safe is the only way to store them “safely” enough for you, but as the laws are set up that isn’t always possible (say a carrier leaving it in the car at the bank), it is still behind a locked door however, and for me having someone invade your locked house or car to get your gun is enough to put the onus on the intruder rather than the victim of theft. Take me for example, I live alone and when I’m not home the gun comes with me, do I need a safe to stop my cats from commiting a mass shooting? Unlikely. Could someone break in? Yes, but it isn’t there unless I am too, and again I say if they kick in a door the onus is on them, rather than me, the victim of this violent crime.
Negligent discharges, especially causing injury or death but also in general, are punished. Of course, if a gun negligently discharges in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, yeah the guy probably doesn’t snitch on himself, sure. Of course, if you drove with a BAC of 0.08 and made it home fine you wouldn’t call the cops and snitch on yourself either.
HALLELUJIA! There is a god! I didn’t think you had the ability to realize you were wrong!