11mo ago

Maryland bill would force gun owners to get $300K liability insurance to wear or carry

foxbaltimore.com Maryland bill would force gun owners to get $300K liability insurance to wear or carry | WBFF

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.

You're viewing a single thread.

633 comments

Some of us did have insurance, then a bunch of anti-gun groups pressured the payment processors to stop working with companies that offered "murder insurance."
- Man, people will really twist anything into a crime if it fits their agenda, won't they.
  Even if it isn't mandatory, having liability insurance to cover accidental death or injury claims seems like a sensible idea if you're a responsible gun owner. And I'm pretty sure that if you DO commit murder, the courts will have something to say about it, not to mention the policy probably won't pay out if it was intentional. Which means they'd have an incentive to actually investigate every claim to make SURE it wasn't murder before they pay you, so you'd actually be likely to have more scrutiny, not less.
- Sounds like a step in the right direction. Force people to get insurance to keep a deadly weapon, and at the same time prevent insurance companies from offering that service. A convoluted way to ban private citizens owning guns in a civilised country sounds good regardless?
  
  It's the reason we can't make progress at all on guns.
  There are people in the anti-gun crowd who have demonstrated time and again that they aren't acting in good faith when they offer "reasonable" solutions, so the pro-gun crowd now refuses to compromise on anything.
  You know why it took so long to get background checks for firearm purchases? It's because gun-owners were afraid of a firearm registry that would eventually be used to confiscate their guns. And that was absolutely a goal of the anti-gun crowd.
  You know what got us the background checks? Having a compromise that banned the government from keeping a registry of gun owners, but having dealers keep private records of sales so that any specific firearm could be traced from its manufacturer to the first buyer. It was an elegant solution that drastically improved matters, even if it didn't solve everything.
  And that's what compromise allows us to do - move forward little by little.
  I would love to have a firearm with smart safety features like a fingerprint scanner, but the anti-gun crowd prevents them from being developed because they pushed for laws that would outlaw all guns that don't have the features once they become available on any gun. The result was every gun manufacturer instantly stopped developing the tech to keep their entire portfolios from being banned.
  In California, newer pistols, often with improved safety and reliability, are illegal to sell because any new pistol there is required to have a serial number stamp on the firing pin to mark the primer - a feature that doesn't exist. So you've got guns that are decades out of date being sold new there because they're all that's legal. Glock still manufacturers pistols that are old enough they're out of patent because they can be sold in California. Taurus pistols that have killed people because they fire when shaken are legal there, but the newer ones that fixed the safety features are not.
  NICS isn't available to the general public for firearm sales because the anti-gun crowd won't settle for that improvement for the time being, and instead wants to go all-in on background checks and a transfer of ownership for lending a gun to a buddy going hunting. Instead of slow-rolling the path to (very necessary) universal background checks, progress is frozen. Straw purchases are easier because gun owners have learned throgh experience not to trust the "other side."
  Nobody on either side is willing to compromise on anything anymore and it's depressing, because progress isn't being made. Gun control advocates' overzealousness is a textbook example of letting perfect get in the way of good. Instead of slow progress we're moving backwards.
  
  I would love to have a firearm with smart safety features like a fingerprint scanner, but the anti-gun crowd prevents them from being developed because they pushed for laws that would outlaw all guns that don’t have the features once they become available on any gun. The result was every gun manufacturer instantly stopped developing the tech to keep their entire portfolios from being banned.
  I think the biofire gun might conform to the criteria that you're looking for, but it strikes me more as a "nightstand" gun than maybe something you might want to carry around, and I dunno what you really want your gun for.
  
  I think the tech isn't quite there for a self defense gun because of that stupid New Jersey law that set us back decades.
  I'd want it for hunting and target-shooting guns where the firearm failing to fire is an annoyance rather than something that will get you killed.
  My self-defense pistol is on my body or unloaded in a locked safe in a hidden compartment on my vehicle with the mag and ammunition locked elsewhere.
  But I can't hide my long guns or target pistols as well.
  
  I mean if you just want something for hunting or plinking, I feel like any classic bolt action rifle would probably be fine, no? The reasoning being that it's a relatively low risk gun generally, if someone else decides to steal it, compared to like, a tricked out ar-15, and it's also much cheaper than that, as well. Depending on what you're wanting to hunt, you could have an air gun, or a much smaller caliber, as well, and improve the cost and relative safety. If you're looking for hiding and hunting guns, then something that you can take down might be a good call, and then you could store the two halves in different places.
  I dunno, I'm assuming you're wanting to hide your guns from people who might steal them, rather than like, your kids, or friends, or some sort of accidental discharge situation, cause if that was the case, I would probably just recommend one of those trigger locks that everyone tends to poo-poo on, which would pretty easily prevent any accidental idiocy as far as other people are concerned, but not not prevent a committed criminal from breaking through it, and they might steal it pretty easily as well. I guess it doesn't matter what you end up getting as much, but if you're really concerned, you could put a bike lock through the magwell, and out of the chamber, and then through some harder piece of your car, so nobody can get it out unless they're bringing a hacksaw, or unless they're a great lockpick. I would recommend anything you might get with a tubular lock, those are pretty hard to open, kind of overkill.
  
  I'm okay in my personal setup really. I've got plenty of firearms and they're kept in safes. But I think there's a plane for smart guns for those who don't have a thousand dollars to spend in safes.
  And there isn't a gun lock made that can't be bypassed in seconds. They're famously insufficient for keeping out curious kids.

633 comments