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.

633 comments

Seems fair. If the risk is low, cost will be low. Let the free market decide, right?
- It will be low. Super low. $300k is pocket change when the incidence for gun carriers to use them is extremely low. It's why we can constantly mock the tacti-cool warriors for thinking they need a gun on them at all times. Plus, the insurance company has way more flexibility in proving their client was not at fault in the incident compared to the shenanigans they have to pull now for car wrecks.
  
  It's hard to imagine a reasonable objection, then. I don't trust insurance companies very much, but if there's one thing they do well, it's associating risk with cost.
  
  It's why we can constantly mock the tacti-cool warriors for thinking they need a gun on them at all times.
  That's doesn't make sense. We mock them for thinking they're in danger without a gun. Insurance is for the danger they create by carrying a gun.
- Its cheap because theres almost no risk. Tiger attack insurance is very cheap in the US too.
  So whats the point? Insurance cant possibly solve any actual problems associated with gun violence.
  
  I would bet that tiger attack insurance for someone who brings a tiger with then in public would be astronomical.
  The point is to put the burden of cost where it actually belongs. Instead of society footing the bill, now gun owners will pay into an insurance system that will cover costs in the event of damage.
  
  That's certainly what I've been told. The statistics look a little sketchy to me on that front, but I'm not a mathematician and insurance companies will surely do a better analysis than anyone on this thread.
  
  Well insurance companies might deny coverage for people with a documented past of mental illness or violent behavior, which is more due diligence than many states are apparently putting in.
  I mean it's fucked and the proper solution should of course be regulation and proper background checks should not be too much to expect, but if everything has to be a "free market" masquerade then that would still be better than nothing (though I agree not by very much).
  
  Now think about any of the school shootings and the amount of guns they used. Do you see a kid buying some guns AND having to have an insurance?
  
  Well the liability aspect does include some risk.
  It also depends if it's on the weapon or person.
  Specifically if the gun insured is used in a crime or to cause see harm. It doesn't have to be the most extreme scenario.
  If it's per gun, that could easily be hundreds or thousands per month per gun hoarder.
- Pay to carry seems pretty not ok to me.
  
  But it's pay to drive, right? I suppose driving isn't mentioned in the bill of rights, but I'd argue neither is the individual right to wield a firearm.
  
  You are walking around with a deadly weapon. We test, register, and insure people who drive around with a deadly weapon.
  Nothing about the 2A says you do not assume liability for exercising your right. ain fact, all of US case on this would say the opposite. You absolutely assume liability for both what you do with your weapons, and what you fail to do with your weapons.
  
  There is a definable risk to life and property associated with carrying. And the cost of that risk should be born by those perpetuating it. I hear carrying supposedly makes things safer, so presuming the actuarial tables agree that cost should be totally nominal in which case why not?

Awesome. We're going to apply it to cops too, right?
Right?
- Did you read the article? Yes, it applies to police.
  
  LOLLLLLLL if you think it'll make it to a final vote without a law enforcement exemption being added.
  
  Yes, I quoted it in one of my other comments.
  The law is not final yet, though. I'm sure there will be a wall of whine coming from the cops about how they're so special and should be exempted. The real test will be if the legistlature capitulates or leaves them in there.
  
  Fuck reading

These proposals would ultimately manifest in insurance for white peopel costing less and black people and hispanics costing more. All this does is price minorities out of gun rights. The whites will be fine, good thing they're not the ones comitting the vast majority of gun terrorism . . . Oh wait I've just received some devastating statistics . . .
- Insurance underwriters would surely base their insurance premiums off that very information. I think this may be a rare case of insurance actually being somewhat fair considering race.
  Then again, Baltimore.
  
  The overwhelming majority of gun deaths are sucide, organized crime also has a high share. The insurance premiums are not going to be based on whos more likely to do a mass shooting they're gonna be based on every payout they prospectivly have to make. So people who will get the highest rates will be minorities and those seeking mental health treatment. So the best way to keep your premium low would be to be white and not seek mental health treatment. That's not exactly behavior I would like financially incentivised.
- Don't be a sucker. If dogshit gun laws made minorities safer, America would be the safest country in the world by a massive margin.
- Concern trolling, classic.
- wanna back that up with data?
  
  Sure, here you go, exactly the kinds and sources and data insurers are going to look at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7226a9.htm
  Seems to imply the biggest risks for insuring are Black men. White men come in even lower than Black women. I'm sure actuaries will pull more than just this graph but it's pretty indicative of how it will shake out. Unless of course you have some sources you'd like to cite that imply otherwise.

I'm not very opinionated on guns tbh, but I do think this only makes it more difficult for poor people. I'm not sure I agree with that.
- That's the exact point of these bills. Don't ever assume that safety is the priority of these bills. They don't want the working poor to have rights.
  
  They want to take the guns from poor people! When is this going to end? What about the right to bear arms that's in the CoNSTituTioN?
- But it also makes sure you get paid something in case accidents, at least in theory.
  It's ridiculously easy to do 300k plus of accidental damages misusing a gun, but most people don't have 300k to pay even if a court orders them to.
  
  Great, if my child is shot dead in school by some rich kid, at least I get 300k to pay for child funeral. /s
- It probably makes it more difficult for MOST people. I don't know what the stats are on people who want to carry a firearm in public are, income-wise... but I feel like that's an impossible amount of money for most of them to spend on something like carrying a gun.
  
  I'm not sure about this legislation either, really, but they're not being asked to spend $300,000, just to be able to get an insurance policy for that amount.
  
  Impossible anount! How are they going to survive if they vantage carry a deadly weapons in public?
- IIRC, shooting someone in self-defense can still add up to about $500,000 in legal costs.
  I'm not sure enforcing liability insurance makes it harder on poorer people as much as helps them potentially avoid insurmountable financial hardship should they ever need to use their CCW.
  
  @mob expressed himself wrong. It doesn't really hurt the poor people directly, but it does transfer even more power to rich by allowing them to arm themselves and stopping anyone from working class to do so as well. It is ultimately a right-wing bill disguised as left-wing, as all laws end up being in the end.
  
  I think you are the first person in this thread to understand that $300k is the policy amount, not the cost...
- Oh no poor people not being allowed to carry their piece anymore if they cant afford insurance, how unjust. How are they going to survive?
  
  You're Right. The Second Amendment is only a right for rich white people. Just like the 4th and 5th Amendments.

Never understood why you have to have insurance to operate vehicles, but not have insurance for weapons, or dogs for that matter.
- Because owning of weapons is a constitutional right with very limited means to restrict your rights too.
  owning/operating a vehicle is simply a privilege that is easily revoked for any number of reasons, and can have many barriers between you and having it.
  Because the constitution was written 200 years ago, and is not fit for the modern day.
  
  Requiring insurance should fall under the definition of "well regulated"
  
  having a constitutional right to carry a weapon does not shield you from responsibility if you misuse that weapon in a way that violates my rights.
  
  A vehicle is a weapon.
  
  But how will militias hunt escaped slaves without the second amendment?
- One is a right that shall not be infringed, and the other one is a state-regulated privilege (at least for operating the machine on public roads).
  Very simple to understand actually. You can't put paywalls in front of rights, so this will be dunked right down the shitter if it passes, by the courts.
  
  historically the courts have allowed many restrictions to the second amendment, its only modern revisionism thats reinterpreted "well regulated militia" as "literally anyone except felons" and "the right to bear arms" as "gun companies have a right to unrestricted gun sales"
  
  The irony that the establishment considers the boom-boom death sticks as a "right" and the quite-literally-required car for modern society is a "privilege."
  You should need to have insurance for your stupid yee-yee adventures to shoot the melanin-enriched customers at a Walmart..
- There are places that mandate dog insurance if the dog has been aggressive in the past. It's at least a partial step in the right direction.

If you think that's bad, I had to get a $1,000,000 umbrella coverage policy for our swimming pool to cover liability in case someone gets injured. I don't think it's unreasonable at all
- SCOTUS would say that the distinction is that we don't have a fundamental right under the Constitution to have a swimming pool on our property. But we do have a fundamental right to possess firearms.
  As established in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, such as self-defense. Any state law impacting this right would be subject to judicial scrutiny and likely strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny is applied when a law impacts a fundamental right or involves a suspect classification. Such laws must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
  While the right to bear arms is protected, the Supreme Court acknowledges that this right is not absolute and can be subject to regulations. Restrictions such as background checks and prohibitions for certain individuals (like felons or the mentally ill) have been upheld.
  However there is legal precedent that excessive economic barriers to exercising a fundamental right can be problematic. For instance, in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections (1966), the Court struck down a poll tax as it constituted a barrier to the fundamental right to vote.
  Given these principles, a mandatory $300,000 insurance policy could be seen as a substantial economic barrier to exercising the right to bear arms. The Court would likely assess whether the law is justifiable under strict scrutiny. If the state argues that the law serves public safety, the Court would consider whether it's narrowly tailored to that interest.
  If the requirement disproportionately affects lower-income individuals, the Court might view it as an undue burden on the fundamental right to bear arms, similar to how poll taxes were viewed as barriers to voting rights.
  All of this is very stupid, and does not happen in normal liberal democracies
  
  Ultimately we need to thank the Roberts Court for teaching Americans that previously established rulings can be overturned, a la Roe
  I'm thinking when the pendulum swings back and liberals control the court, we'll take a closer look at the part of the 2nd amendment that says 'we'll regulated'.
  
  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.
  
  If the Constitution currently expresses a stronger, more irrevocable right to own firearms than to operate a motor vehicle, then it very much has its priorities out of whack, considering which one of those is more likely to be urgently needed by the populace. It needs to be changed. There's a reason they're called "Amendments".

Here's the problem...
We can require automobile insurance because driving a car isn't a right.
Now, owning a gun is a right, and you could argue that wearing or carrying the gun is not, but then you have to go back to New York vs Bruen:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/20-843/
New York used to require special permission to wear or carry a gun. You had to provide special justification for your need to carry and "because I don't feel safe" or "I want to defend myself" wasn't good enough.
Supreme Court ruled:
"We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense."
Given that, I can't imagine they would hold an insurance requirement to be constitutional.
Should Alex Jones be forced to have liability insurance before spouting off conspiracy theories on InfoWars? Yeah, probably. But that's not the way the first amendment works either.
- I agree that their interpretation would work that way, however, I don't see how they can pretend their interpretation of the second amendment is anything like that of the first. They restrict time and place of first amendment rights constantly. The government can make you get a permit in order to hold a demonstration on public land. There are "free speech zones", and things like protests of pipelines are broken up by the government all of the time.
  I know we shouldn't expect consistency from this bunch of looney tunes, but I still think it's worth pointing out that they're not being consistent at all.
  
  Well, the 2nd is restricted similarly. For example, even with a permit, you can't carry concealed in a courtroom. The waiver is for "in general".
  
  I agree that their interpretation would work that way, however, I don’t see how they can pretend their interpretation of the second amendment is anything like that of the first
  Unfortunately, the highest law of the land disagrees with your interpretation at this time. They have this whole "plain meaning of words" mindset. The typical 3rd grader reading the 2nd Amendment would think "oh ok, I can have a gun". Therefore, that's what the 2nd Amendment means now.
  They restrict time and place of first amendment rights constantly.
  Yeah, that's covered by jurisprudence based around the needs of the country. And the law is right that the First Amendment doesn't say the freedom of speech is the freedom to disrupt (preventing people from going to their destination, vandalizing property, etc). But if you needed to buy Free Speech Insurance, that would get shot down as unconstitutional.
- None of those other amendment rights are an inherent physical danger to innocent people. The Second Amendment is.
  
  But it's not like insurance is going to help. If you buy a gun that gets used in a shooting, it's still used in a shooting. The only difference is that someone might get money, but it doesn't actually solve any problem.
  What it does do is place a regressive tax on gun ownership.
  
  Disagree fundamentally. First amendment is absofuckinglutely WILD right to be able to speak freely without legal repercussions
  Hilter built the Nazi war machine from speeches to semi-drunk veterans in beer halls Cult/political/spiritual grifters and can ply their trade unmolested as long as they skirt around fraud laws Political speech, criticism of leadership and government, 4chan, art, etc etc all can have far more power and influence over everyone
  
  Uhm…next one sort of is. Unless you want to open your home to strangers with weapons and training.
  
  Bro there's so many tools that can be used to kill people. Can't legislate all of them out of reach of everyone.
  The core issue doesn't lie with what tool is used.
  
  Carrying concealed does not pose an inherent danger to anyone either.
  In fact:
  "Combining Florida and Texas data, we find that permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth of the rate for police officers.
  Among police, firearms violations occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Among permit holders in Florida and Texas, the rate is only 2.4 per 100,000. That is just 1/7th of the rate for police officers. But there's no need to focus on Texas and Florida — the data are similar in other states."
  https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3463357
- Problem. That entire ruling was based off the idea that there was no such regulations in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Except it was an extremely common regulation. And even in that paragraph they lie. Try having a protest without a permit. Ask them how many times the government is allowed to put someone on trial. Ask them about the 4th amendment right against illegal searches and seizures, specifically Civil Asset Forfeiture, where you have to request the government to give you your stuff back that was seized without any due process. I could keep going.
  A SCOTUS that lies to itself and the world for ideological purposes is not an authority on our rights.
  
  Just because you don't recognize their authority doesn't mean they aren't the authority though, at least until the composition changes again.
  This is why it's going to be so important to have a Democratic President in when Thomas and Alito leave the court, they are the two oldest members and it could happen in either the '24 or '28 terms.

Ahhh, the old "let's make something a right that only the rich can afford." For all the "eat the rich" rhetoric here, there seems to be a lot of desire to increase the class divide even more by limiting rights to how much money you have.
It's already very difficult to nearly impossible to obtain a purchase and carry permit in the state since Maryland is "May issue" state and NOT a "Shall issue" state. This means you can be denied a permit at the whim of local law enforcement unless you have an "in" with whoever is in charge. This is purely performative theater to buy votes.
And the two groups that really should have liability insurance - drug gangs and law enforcement - will be completely unaffected by this requirement.
- Just don't bring your gun to your favorite walmart?...
  You don't have to bring the fucking thing around with you everywhere
  
  You were never a boy scout were you? Ever heard of being prepared? Maybe the phrase "I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it"? Bet the people in the Walmart shooting in Texas a few years ago wish they would have taken their gun into the Walmart.
- It’s definitely odd seeing the crowd cheering for regulatory capture, that’s certain. Doubly infuriating because this kind of legislation will not solve problems, it’s virtue signaling to anti-gun donors and voters, that just pisses off everyone who has to live with it. How does insurance solve harm? It doesn’t, and I’d argue this is legally untested enough that a carrier can likely find ways to get out from paying.
  There’s much better areas to start unraveling this issue, but they’re hard and don’t make quick headlines for clout:
  Expand the denied persons categories, including domestic violence, including cops
  Actually enforce sentencing for gun charges instead of pleading out, so ‘repeat offender’ laws actually work as designed
  Focus funding and diversion efforts at gang members who commit violence in communities, instead of broad, cosmetic centric bans
  Stop fetishizing guns as ‘manly’ or ‘powerful’ instead of just the deadly tools they are. Society shares blame here, but gun marketing absolutely took that an RAN with it
  
  Focus funding and diversion efforts at gang members who commit violence in communities...
  There it is lmao. Like gangs are the problem.
- MD is Shall Issue now, thanks to Bruen. Still very hard to obtain a permit, as you require 16 hours of instruction, passing a live-fire exam, and paying about $200 in fees (on top of the $400 class).
  
  That doesn't sound that hard.
  
  Oh damn you have to show basic competence with a deadly weapon before you're allowed to take it home and cuddle it? What an authoritarian hellscape.
- It's already very difficult to nearly impossible to obtain a purchase and carry permit in the state since Maryland is "May issue" state and NOT a "Shall issue" state.
  You almost make it sound like this is a bad thing?
- If "performative theatre" upsets you, then the pro-gun side is not for you.
  They crow about "keeping their family safe" but droves of children are blowing their brains out with their dads guns or dying screaming on their classroom floor.
  They promise all the gun violence will be worth it because they'll keep us safe from tyranny but they enthusiastically vote for authoritarian, far-right candidates running on a platform of "we will take away the rights of women and minorities".
  They promise they're "responsible gun owners", then staunchly oppose any measure that makes that responsibility a requirement, not a completely voluntary pinkie promise.

I see what they want to do: no sane insurance company will provide such contracts unless they either:
make the customers pay exorbitant prices
require background checks and do the control themselves
Any of those will of course disincentivize people from owning guns, which is a good thing, but it's crazy that a state has to offload these controls to a private company because there is no political willingness to do it in the right way.
- This solves nothing, except for the rich getting the sole prerogative to guns.
  
  Personal liability insurance typically costs around $8 to $10 a year for every $100,000 in coverage https://www.policygenius.com/homeowners-insurance/what-is-personal-liability-insurance
  Even if this source is off by a factor of 10, what person can purchase a $400+ firearm but can't afford the same in yearly insurance?
  
  It’s okay, Billy McFucksHisSister was kinda outgunned by “the gubmint’s” F-35s already I don’t think his walmart glock was anything the rich ever feared.
- They are using the anti-abortion strategy of finding a fairly strong argument and trying to maximize the ability of blocking something based on it. This will likely also fail like most of those attempts did.
- what is the right way? carrying was almost impossible in MD before the Supreme Court ruling.

Something needs to be done but wow this feels like the worst way to go.
- Oh you mean the way that let's the monied ruling class stay armed while all the rest of us lowly poors can't be. Surely that genius plan won't ever backfire.
  
  Surely that genius plan won't ever backfire.
  And the current gun laws haven't backfired? The country is a fucking mess and none of the pro-gun promises have come true.
  Authoritarians have never been more powerful and the guns have done nothing to stop them. The most effective way to keep your family safe is to just move to a wealthy country that doesn't routinely arm domestic abusers, extremists and the deeply mentally ill with the weapons they need to quickly and efficiently kill anyone they want.
  You're not a champion of peoples rights, you're a simp for the gun lobby with delusions of grandeur.

Are we going to start with the police?
- Did…did you even read the brief?
  As the bill is currently written, local and state law enforcement officers are not exempt from the insurance requirement.
  
  I think they mean, while on duty. That statement right there is just saying they don't get a pass while they're off the job, just because they're LEOs.
  
  Well it's not law yet. They're pretty good at pushing for tweaks to laws in their favor.
  
  As the bill is currently written
  Get back to us when it passes with that language in it.
  
  No.
  
  Federal officers are fully immune though.
- They'll get Qualified Liability.

So, let me see if I've got this right.
Maryland wants to have a privately-enforced tax on the exercise of a constitutional right. Do I have that more or less correct? Perhaps you could also have a requirement that all religious congregations or any kind have a $1B policy in case there is sexual misconduct by a member of the congregation?
- A tax that disproportionally affects poor people. We wouldn't want those people having guns, now would we?
  
  I genuinely would. I believe that all people (that aren't prohibited due to prior illegal violent actions) should be able to exercise their rights, if that is their choice. I don't think people should be required to own firearms, any more than I think that anyone should be required to vote. But I don't think that the state should be trying to prevent either. And it really pisses me off that gun owners in general want to close off exercise of rights to the "wrong" people, esp. non-white people, LGBTQ+ people, and anyone that's to the political left of Benitto Mussolini.
- Not the congregation, but perhaps the clergy should carry insurance. Especially if they're part of a church that has a history of sexual assault in their organization
  
  I would suggest that you look into church sex abuse cases. It's not always the clergy that's committing abuse. Quite often it's members, and the clergy is covering it up because of the priest-penitent privilege (edit: and to protect the reputation of the church; this has been true with the Mormon ~~cult~~ church, JWs, Southern Baptist Convention members, and many, many other churches). (Which, BTW, only means that they their testimony can't be used in an investigation or trial without the permission of the penitent. It does not legally bar them from alerting the police that abuse has occurred.)
- Yeah.....about that
  
  That is optional insurance, not mandated by a state law. You can already buy insurance (Edit: for firearms) to protect you in case of negligence, or prosecution for something you claim is self-defense.
- Do I have that more or less correct?
  Only if you believe it's an individual right, which you can't without ignoring half the amendment that creates it.
  
  Well, yeah, actually I can, because of the history surrounding that text, and what it meant when it was written.
  The part you are conveniently ignoring is the body of the constitution prior to the bill of rights that gives congress the power to raise an army, and to equip that army. If congress already has the power to raise an army/militia and provide arms for them, then why would you need an amendment saying that congress can't pass laws to prevent itself from arming an army? (For your reference that is Article 1, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power ... To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years ...To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions ... To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"
  Moreover, when you look at the bill of rights, all of the rights are pertaining to individual people (or people and states, in the case of 10A). It's pretty clear that the freedom of the press isn't a collective right, but one that is an individual right.
  Beyond that, you need to understand what they meant by militia; the militia was every able-bodied male below about 50 (not sure on the exact age cutoffs); in many cases they were legally obligated to provide their own arms (despite the constitution saying that the gov't could pay for them), those arms were required to be militarily useful, and they were required to train both on their own and with other members of the militia.

This would go to the supreme court who would rule that restricting the right to bear arms to someone's financial status is unconstitutional or some shit.
- Well tbf "no guns for poor people" is pretty classist.
  
  It's it more classist than no car if you can't afford insurance, or no mortgage if you can't afford home loan insurance (or whatever it's called in the us) though? And where are our priorities between gun, car and roof over ones head? Are guns really THAT important to cry class injustice?
- My constitutional right to an AR 15 depends on my ability to pay $2,000 or whatever they cost. Not in my budget. The old bank account needs more freedoms it seems.
  This is a joke, but seriously though - how is affordability an argument when guns also cost money?
  
  Not every gun is $2,000. A Taurus is $<300
  And your right to bear arms is irrespective of the cost of a gun. Inheritance, gifts, etc.
  
  sure 2 grand is a lot of money, but dont go and tell me your car is affordable because you spent 10 grand on it.
  Or that your house was worth the money, or whatever place you rent currently, or all those things that you probably pay for monthly.
  It's a one time cost, for a weapon, that if correctly maintained will last basically forever.
  
  Reasonable vs unreasonable expense. You need to buy a gun, ammunition, and a training course? Not a problem. You need to buy a gun, ammo, and a $300k golden stamp, that's not fine, because it is prohibitively expensive.
  If this type of insurance is illegal or prohibitively expensive, then this will be struck down. If not, it might be permitted, or it might not. The supreme court is extremely conservative right now, so I suspect it would be struck down regardless.
  
  I could build you one for ~$350. It would function fine, just be made out of inferior parts (and make more work for me because QC), A2 furniture, all that jazz.
  I don't have Maryland® Gun Insurance™ but I do have car insurance, and a one time payment of $350 is cheaper than my car insurance by a hefty bit and I have a good driving record. Thing is, insurance payments are recurring rather than one time so it starts to build up.
  
  So is your right to food though. No ones legally bound to give you food if you don't make enough money. Thank goodness people do, but that's not because of any type of law requiring them to do so. Theres nothing on the books that would make it illegal to allow people to starve. Furthermore, all rights are dependent on money because who's going to stop violating the righrs of someone who cannot sue them?
  
  Really?
  How is affordability a concern for insulin, when it also costs money?
  Obviously one is a medical necessity and the other is not. But the point carries.
  Lawful users of firearms are disproportionately affected by this, compared to the murderer that's getting their firearms illicitly.
  It's not solving a problem, it's pushing the accessibility further away from the common man. Bit by bit.
- Well it is. If you're going to let everyone have guns, you shouldn't restrict ownership based on who can afford insurance on it.
  I don't think any private citizen should be able to own guns anyway though.
  
  I agree that individuals shouldn't own guns.
  I think the second amendment should always been about the right to have state organized militias. I think that is a fair thing to have to avoid tyranny. The convoluted mess of a legal argument that judges have stood up to justify everyone having guns is just insane to me. The ultra minority who have easy access to guns and shoot people up... every single week... is not worth the benefit of having 60% right side hearing loss by 40 like my gun loving friends in the midwest.

Disarm the poors! Only our oppressors should have the option of lethal self-defense!
- Ah yes. America. The only country in the world where it’s expected that everyone has a gun and can carry it every where they go.
  
  Not the only one, somalia too.
  And instead of complaining for the lack of healthcare, they cry because they are going to tax your Colt and you are not allowed to take it to the supermarket anymore.
  
  fr
- Idk I need to get insurance for my car because it might hurt someone. I think this makes sense and is a good step. You have a right to own guns but no one said it would be cheap.
  If you are poor buying a gun should not be your priority anyways. why do poor people need guns? It's not like they are going out hunting for their food still.
  
  It's obvious you've never lived in the hood lol. Poor income areas usually have the highest crime and often little to no police presence.
  
  Idk I need to get insurance for my car because it might hurt someone. I think this makes sense and is a good step. You have a right to own guns but no one said it would be cheap.
  This brings up a whole other tangent that I'll ignore for now (the necessity of needing a car and it not being a right, and having to pay for it) -- but a dangerous item/toy etc and a gun, i.e. a fundamantal means of self defense, should be treated differently by law in a country that claims to be free.
  
  If you are poor buying a gun should not be your priority anyways. why do poor people need guns? It's not like they are going out hunting for their food still.
  YEAH! Stupid fucking poors, if your neighborhood is so dangerous just get a better job and move to a gated community like the one RagingRobot here lives in! You're too poor and stupid to handle protecting yourself anyway and since you're so poor who cares if you die?
- Nobody should be carrying as a routine.
  
  Ideally, but shits crazy. I'm a transgender woman and like a third of this country proudly wants me dead and some of them are willing to make it happen.
  
  So long as there are actual Nazis around, there exists a strong argument for it.
  
  Nobody should be carrying.
- When they say "our democracy is at stake," they don't mean all Americans. They mean them and their friends'.
- And how many guns have you donated to the homeless? You're absolutely fine with gun ownership having a cost, as long as you can afford it.
  
  Things have a cost, there's the materials, and unless you are a proponent of slave labor someone had to make the thing. This applies to literally everything. No shit "EvErYtHiNg IsN't FrEe," but everything can be donated if you so choose. The problem with donating guns to the homeless though is it's technically illegal since you do not know if they can legally possess firearms, they may be a felon or "an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside." (ATF Form 4473 question 21f.) Or question 21g for that matter, "Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?" Or 21h "Have you ever been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions?" Or 21j "Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, or are you or have you ever been a member of the military and been convicted of a crime that included, as an element, the use of force against a person as identified in the instructions?"

Another right-wing bill that gives the rich power over poor, disguised as left-wing bill. All politicians in power are rich, which is why they always push for right-wing politics, democrat or republican, always end up against the working class. There is a good video about this.
- If the statistics show what gun fanatics claim, that guns keep people safer, then our capitalist market will compete down to a very low price because it won't be expensive for the insurers. Econ 101.
  
  It keeps the rich safer from the working class to rebel against them. This bill only makes more of a gap and gives more power to the rich, over the poor.
- That's my feeling too. I like the immediate thought about requiring insurance but thinking further I see the negatives too.

Do we really need to help insurance companies make more money? Are thier stocks low?
- They're jealous of pharma companies the last few years.

Do cops next!
- As the bill is currently written, local and state law enforcement officers are not exempt from the insurance requirement.
  I can't wait to see said cops tie themselves into complicated knots trying to explain why they ought to get a free pass but somehow us regular plebians have it different.

This is a lot like insuring a vehicle. So they shouldn’t make it a flat insurance, which would be regressive, but tailor it to the capacity, ammunition type, and firing rate of the weapon.
That’s what would make it a progressive fee - a basic Saturday Night Special or hunting rifle would be cheap for any poor person to own, whereas a military style machine gun would be cost-prohibitive for all but the wealthiest.
They could even have extra discounts based on user certification and tested skill levels, with surcharges based on discharge accidents and situations where the gun was recorded being improperly brandished or carried.
- Like for a 9mm, which doesn't really hurt that much if any. That's just 2000 bucks. But for an ak47 which is scary from 5 feet away that's $34,000 bond in case you accidentally pop it inside a mall parking lot and ruin a car. But for a small cannon you would need at least $1000,000.00 liability because it probably really hurts, and you could accidentally ruin a friendship, his wife's head, the dog, an entire car tire, 3 rats, a large pizza, a squirrel and the bottom part of a giraffe...all in a single shot. Gotta be careful with cannons out there you know. Plus you can't really carry those, you just sorta pull them around.
  
  Lot of very specific detail their. Come on share the story.
- Why should all but the wealthiest be allowed to own an assault rifle? I think that's a recipe for disaster.
  
  Guns have always been a recipe for disaster
  
  Yeah, this bill is stupid. It just gives rich more power than the poor, like all bills. No matter the topic in politics, it always ends up as something that hurts only the working class.
- The difference is that bearing arms is a right according to the constitution. Having a car is not. Makes it difficult to require insurance for guns.

Aside from this being a regressive tax, how many unjustifiable shootings result from people legally permitted to carry a firearm?
- A lot, mostly NDs. I can't find any statistics because google sucks these days, but you can find video after video after video of people shooting themselves and their friends with "empty" guns. I used to frequent the /r/IdiotsWithGuns subreddit. Some great examples of how badly someone can ruin a life in an instant on there
- I think most gun deaths tend to be handguns, and tend to be suicides, which would probably be people who would still be allowed to have a firearm in this circumstance, though I can see the insurance dissuading that in the case of people who are killing themselves on impulse (though I would think a wait period would be equally as effective, is already implemented in some places, doesn't financially discriminate, and neither legislation nor really any legislation we have actually would flag someone as being at risk if they wanted to kill themselves, except for the kind of pathetic mental health check form).
  The other large category of gun deaths tend to be what is defined as "organized crime", which tends to stem from a couple different convergent factors. High value property, in drugs, that exists outside the legal system but still must be protected, lack of real social safety nets, large amounts of poverty, redlining, etc. . Generally though these people aren't like, legally acquiring their firearms anyways. What they are doing, and what is a real concern, is them acquiring firearms from legal gun owners, as the US has quite a lot of guns and not a lot of limitations or protection on them. The cartels can get a bunch of fourth generation military surplus used up garbage at an expensive black market price, or they can just rob like one gun nut, shave off a sear, and bing bang boom you have a spiffy new gun, pretty easily. I don't have a great solution to that problem, but in any case you could tackle that issue from the other side by just providing social safety nets, legalizing drugs, trying to lower housing prices, shit like that.
  The stand out category in everyone's mind tends to be "mass shootings", or, lone wolf, usually stochastic, terrorism, which is kind of an interesting hot button political issue. By any analysis, though, it tends not to be a huge issue in terms of raw deaths, though, I would like to see some sort of crackdown on it happen, but you would probably need some even-handed, discriminating approach to that, or, again, better flags for mental illness, rather than a large encompassing law. Also getting a shoutout is unjustifiable police shootings but I also don't have a great solution beyond that outside of abolishing police, and getting rid of this stupid fucking patent that axon has on the taser.
  In any case basically, you are correct, this law's gonna do jack shit.
- Too many, probably? Do you see any downsides?
  
  There are some serious downsides. In this case, this should get progressive alarms going off.
  But before we get to the bulk, I'm going to repeat my last line's question first. Why invent new ways to fuck the poor in the name of gun control when we have solutions that work?
  It encourages transitioning gun ownership percentage to wealthy white people and less gun ownership to less-wealthy and non-white people (who, on average, make less money). This is the big one
  People don't like to admit it, but gun ownership DOES have a deterrent effect in high crime areas. Home invaders regularly mention avoiding houses of armed people when interrogated. I don't want ANYONE robbed on my street, but I definitely don't want my family victimized. My road has a dramatically lower home invader rate (based on value of property) than surrounding areas. Why? Outspoken gun owners due to the hunting culture (we have too many deer)... Do we really want to pretend to justify all the upsides of gun ownership to going to rich white people?
  Over 90% of gun crimes are committed with illegal weapons, a majority of which go back to legitimate owners and were stolen/given illegally. That means the liability insurance chain is already broken (or the rates go up, further alienating poor folks)
  Simply tracing, background checks, and better regulation all-round would be more effective than a regressive tax on gun ownership. And those things are well-established and well-tested in society. Regulations WORK. So why invent new ways to fuck the poor in the name of gun control when we have solutions that work?
  EDIT:
  And some other thoughts that kinda go both ways at once. It looks like $300k is the quoted amount by most 2A firearm insurance companies. Almost like they lobbied for the bill. It makes me wonder if they would also lobby for weakening other regulations because "well gun owners are insured".
  And part 2 as a flipside. It looks like the costs might not be terribly high. I'm seeing quotes as low as $30/mo. It's hard because they are all EXTREMELY shadey companies and (like other insurance companies) they like to hide their rates from potential buyers. As well as their fine print since the rates are so low from them avoiding paying out. By their fine print, it looks like they don't pay out if your action might have been criminal. So the insurance doesn't actually pay the victims of anything except accidental discharge.
  But then, do we want to empower another questionably corrupt industry by mandating gun owners be their customers?

I appreciate that they're trying to do something here, but this doesn't feel like it's aimed at stopping actually dangerous people. This feels like it's aimed at beating on people who were already willing to deal with Maryland's already more-strict-than-usual gun laws.
But I guess we'll see how this pans out in a few years.

A bit about me for context: I'm Canadian, I have an interest in guns. I do not own any guns. I can imagine myself owning a gun, but don't want one right now. I know a bit about guns, but not a lot. eg Rim fire vs center fire, and that there isn't anything specific that makes a rifle an assault rifle. I support gun regulation but think Canada's recent changes go too far (it's now impossible for a normal citizen to legally obtain a handgun in Canada).
My two cents on this bill:
Every responsible gun owner ought to have liability insurance that covers their firearms regardless of whether or not it's required.
Objections to such requirements based on the cost of insurance could be overcome in a few ways. Two that occur to me off the top of my head: a. Individual insurance could be not necessary if the citizen is a member of a well regulated militia (but the state could define what qualifies as a well regulated militia, maybe: shared liability, annual training) b. The state could offer tax payer funded insurance, for gun owners that agree to certain conditions e.g. gun use, storage (and inspections)
I look forward to the comments.
- Ooh give the gun nuts socialized gun insurance. I’ll get my popcorn.
- Every responsible gun owner
  It's not the responsible ones that are the problem here.
  
  I agree, the point is that it's awkward for someone to oppose this policy because they're kind of confessing to being irresponsible.
- it's now impossible for a normal citizen to legally obtain a handgun in Canada
  Very good, be grateful you live in a modern and civilized place, go out and do things that normal citizens do then. Get a hobby. You don't need to own or use deadly weapons nor be part of a 'well regulated militia', no one does.
  
  Hey I'm not sure this was your intention but the way you passed your response feels like you're criticizing me.
  It makes it hard to respond without seeming like I'm on the defensive. But for example, I am grateful to live in a country with more sane gun laws than the USA. I do things normal^tm citizens do. I also happen to know normal^tm people that own guns. How do I know them? By participating in hobbies (with them). Like yeah I agree not many people need to own guns but a lot do, and if you want to improve the gun situation in the USA there are some legal and political realities you'll have to work within.

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.

So how much could such insurance actually cost? Does anyone have the numbers to do the maths?
Say a single policy covers any number of guns a person has. So we need a number of people owning guns.
A death is definitely 300k payout. What kind of payout, on average, would injury be? Also 300k because healthcare costs are insane? Less than that?
How many people are killed using a gun every year?
How many are injured?
I wonder what the pure business cost would be for the insurance. I don't actually know how large a profit margin insurance companies run, would curious to sort of blindly apply that here as well.
- The basic math is pretty simple. (Estimated payouts + profit margin) / customer count = monthly payments. Then you start weighting it based on risk factors. Criminal record? Your premium goes up. Take an annual gun safety class? Your premium goes down. Insuring an AR-15 with a drum magazine, bump stock, and grenade tube? Uninsurable. Insuring a .22 Beretta? Cheap.
- Seems in line with potential costs:
  https://mynorthwest.com/33921/even-in-self-defense-can-you-afford-to-pull-the-trigger/

https://www.theactuarymagazine.org/firearm-risk/
The people who wrote this article are going to be happy with this.
- Well, undoubtedly if it is like other types of insurance the insurance will exempt homicide and and suicide. It will probably only cover accidental discharge so it will not help with the two biggest problems.
  
  Most insurance doesn't cover an insured for deliberate acts by the insured. Off the top of my head the only caveat I can think of is in Japan where life insurance can still pay out in the event of suicide.
  
  That makes sense, I guess. If there's a homicide you're probably already suing the perpetrator.

Imagine living in a place where owning a gun isn't the real controversy, and this isn't already a law...
Literally the only gun I want right now is in the VR game pistol whip. It also get me exercising.
- wait until you discover things like bears, or mountain lions.
  
  I've seen Disney cartoons. Animals are cute, cuddly, and help you get dressed
  
  Haha those we actually have. As long as people have been following the rules and not feeding them and locking up their garbage, they don't really like to go near humans. That said there have been problems of people trying to pet the big cats.
  
  These people discredit you because they refuse to understand the practical use of firearms, and focus on the unlawful use.
  If I go campaign to ban all makers and spray paint to curb graffiti. I'd be ridiculed.
  
  Ah yes, that's why a guy living in the middle of Dallas needs an AR-15. Defense against bears and mountain lions.

That's hilariously low.
I've got £2,000,000 liability on my pet insurance. And she's got about 4 teeth left.
- As much as I'm shaking my head at the Americans crying for the poor poor people unable to afford a gun anymore because unjust extra costs.. wtf do you have 2M insurance on a pet? Worried she'll bite the queen and give her rabies with those 4 teeth?
  
  It's just part of the insurance. It's basic. I pay no extra for it, I'll never claim it, they'll never pay it.
  But if a pet could potentially cause £2,000,000 of damage, how much could a gun do? $300k is nothing.

So, this only applies to firearms, right? Can I circumvent this by owning a bow, crossbow, sword or one of the cool experimental coil//plasma/laser guns instead? /S
- Railguns aren't firearms. :)
- Or a black powder pistol. Don't mind me or my belt full of three Colt Navy 1851s. Guess I gotta start chewing so I can spit like Josey too.
  
  Tally_ho.png
  
  So...I just need to replace the gunpowder within each bullet with black powder and I'd be good to go?
- Go for it.
- Sovcit has entered the chat
- Reminds of a few states with magazine capacity bans written so narrowly that they cannot be construed to also apply to belt fed weapons and for the low price of 2000 dollars you can order a part for any AR you own to convert it into a belt fed. Following laws is only for poor people.

I’m only for this if they make law enforcement and government agencies get the same liability insurance to carry as well.
- You know it would be paid by our taxes not our of their pockets. And cops would raise the rates for everyone. They shoot far more people than regular law abiding gun owners per capita. Most murders are committed by unlawful owners who wouldn't carry insurance anyway, so the insurance wouldn't pay out most of the time. If this passes I bet it gets stricken down.
  
  If the cost of keeping a “bad apple” on the force gets too high admin might decide to get rid of said apple.
  Police agencies have budgets and if the cost of keeping Johnnie McShootins on the force gets too high they might cut him. Other agencies might also have second thoughts about employing ol’ McShootins if they find out how much he will drive up their insurance…
  But you are 100% right this penalizes lawful gun owners. This won’t stop criminals.

I believe in this wholeheartedly
but it'lll never pass, and even if it does, it'll never withstand a trial challenge.. because of the bolded part below.
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
edit And just so lemmy doesnt crawl up my ass about it, I am not an ammosexual, I'm quoting the 2nd amendment for its relevance here on how this bill wont stand, not because I'm a red hat wearing cultist.
- In that case, all gun owners should be required to have regular training with their state militia.
  But we’ve already lost to the ammosexuals.
  
  Theres been attempts at that too, struck down for the same reason that this bill will be.
  because god forbid we teach joebob how to keep his booger hook off the boombutton.
- If you're not an ammosexual, why do you appeal to the constitution? This amendment clearly refers to a militia. Are you using the conservative court's opinion for some reason? Would you support this amendment being amended?
  Edit: Genuinely asking, just curious

I appreciate the concept, but is $300,000 enough to actually cover the cost of damages? Guns generally seem like the sort of thing where accidents either cause minimal or catastrophic damage with not much in between.
- Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good.
  Once the law is on the books, it can be used.
  Once there’s an underinsured tragedy, there will be sufficient will to amend the coverage minimum.
  
  This is a law. Almost certainly, it'll become much worse as insurance companies and other lobbyists suggest loopholes and more benefits for them
  You need to start with something solid, or we've just created yet another insurance industry with some very... interesting profit incentives
  I'd be much more on board if the state ran a single option at cost, but this just seems like a mess waiting to happen

This will pretty much only affect the friends/family of politicians, as they are the only ones that can get a permit to legally carry in Maryland.
- Marylander here - the fuck are you talking about
  
  I left in 2014 when you had to beg for permission to even purchase a handgun. Have things become better? Since the politicians are still proposing things like this, I assume not.

This is 10× what California’s pay for their car insurance bill.
- I think the average bullet wound might result in slightly higher medical bills than the average car accident.
  
  I wasn't trying to make a statement, my bad. I was drunk when I said that, and I've sold insurance lmao.

Beneath the Mason Dixon Line? Heavens to Betsy!

This approach to gun control seems sooo american XD A little bit of money surely fixes the problems

Unconstitutional, can't require insurance to exercise a right.
- That's an interesting point. I'm curious though does right to bear arms mean to carry freely or to simply own? If you need a permit to open carry in some places, isn't that already evidence you can restrict the right in certain ways?
  Honestly asking because I don't know.
  
  Owning is very clearly “keeping” which would make utilizing in the defense of yourself and others “bearing.” There’s two parts to the right and own is only one of them.
- All they have to do is, instead of calling it a "law", call it "militia regulation" instead. "Militia" is the entire arms bearing populace; if you own a gun, you are, by definition, part of the Militia. And the 2nd amendment doesn't merely say "everyone has a gun"; it does so in context of maintaining a "well regulated militia". All the right to "keep and bear arms" does is prevent them from requiring we store our arms in a central armory (which was one of the controversies over the matter in England when the right was in development).
  I would say we also have a right to own a car. That doesn't prevent them from requiring we maintain the capacity to bear responsibility if we should accidentally exercise that right improperly.
- You forgot the "well regulated" part of the "well regulated militia"
  That's why we even have gun laws in the first place. Congress and state governments have the authority to do so.
  
  That's not what regulated means in this context.
  "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state" implies that without a standing army, we need well armed citizens.
  Regulated in this case, means supplied.
  However it's so fucking vague, it literally guarantees the right to keep and bear arms completely separately from the militia statement.
  You could argue that the national guard is the militia, and they're very well regulated. But it doesn't matter, because the second amendment doesn't clarify who gets to have guns, just that everybody should be able to keep and carry them. You could even argue that restricting access to firearms for convicted felons is unconstitutional because the second amendment doesn't fucking clarify.
  It's poorly written, is what I'm getting at.
  
  It’s already regulated.
  This is a restriction for poor people and nothing more.
- That's not exactly right. You can't require an unduly onerous burden on the exercise or enjoyment of a right. However, you can abridge rights for reasons which may demonstrate furtherance of a government interest at a given level, that level is dependent on the right being abridged and the mechanism of abridgement.
  
  And I wonder what the monthly payment would be for $300k in insurance when the vast majority of guns are never being used outside gun ranges. Probably pretty cheap. And conceivably legal the same way SCOTUS decided Obamacare insurance mandates were, not by being a mandate but by having the punishment for not having insurance be a tax.
  If it actually decently affordable I actually like this law as a good solution to the problem of guns being potentially very dangerous yet available to everyone, and it's the same solution as car insurance. If you are using a thing that might cause a lot of damage, prove you can pay for any accidental damage you might cause.
- Any precedent you can cite on this?
  
  Google "poll tax".
  
  You're not required to carry insurance before you can post online just in case you defame someone.
  
  Common sense?
- My favorite quote from Thomas Jefferson concerning the 2nd amendment: "You know I got that thang on me. Pull up"
- Agreed! WHERE in the Constitution does it say we can REGULATE our Right to Bear Arms? NOWHERE!
  
  It's already regulated.
  This is a restriction for poor people and nothing more.

Yeah I didn't read any of that (and I'm not going yo read your reply to this one either) but I just realised how dogshit your DGU stats are and wanted to share.
There are 82 million (legal) gun owners in America and 100,000 DGUs a year.
That's 0.1% of gun owners. 75 million children have to wonder if their school is next so that 99.9% of gun owners can have guns that are never used for anything except fun with their buddies.
Thanks, I'm definitely going to be using this.

It's a good idea that has been discussed before, but is almost certainly unconstitutional. You can't paywall constitutional rights.
- If your state doesn't have concealed or open carry laws, you can still 'bear arms' by having them at home and transporting them in proper cases, correct? So this isn't paywalling the right to own guns, just the right to take them around with you like a murdery little comfort blanket.
  
  So it's like a less furry cat?
- Well in revolutionary period, no one carried arms really. Unless you were mustering, carrying your rifle around was ridiculous. It was ~5' long, required manual loading before firing, and you had to carry very volatile black powder to do so. So it wasn't an issue then. And if you're a Constitutional Literalist, the Founders wouldn't have wanted people carrying firearms outside of mustering for drills or war.
  
  One of the most interesting arguments I have heard differentiates between bearing arms and simply carrying arms. A soldier bears arms. Nobody would describe a hunter as bearing arms. A hunter simply carries them.
  At the time of the writing of the Constitution there were an assortment of small single shot pistols meant to be kept in a coat pocket or tucked into a boot, so it isn't exactly accurate to say the founders didn't envision people carrying around guns. On the other hand they were short range, highly inaccurate, and unreliable. Totally incomparable to modern handguns.
  Personally, I prefer to look at the 2nd more broadly as a right to self-defense and that things like a combat rifle are clearly offensive rather than defensive.
- Bootlickers are out in force today, huh?
  While we're putting fundamental rights behind financial barriers, I want a poll tax on pro-lifers, anti-LGBTQ, followers of all religions, and everyone else that I don't like. We can make it 50% of all yearly income from any source or 1% of total assets, whichever is higher.
  Does that sound like a good idea?
  
  Believing in the right to arms is also relevant for leftists, especially if a civil war breaks out. During BLM protests there were also armed leftists in marches which appeared to temper police responses.
  Personally speaking, I don't want cops and rich people, aka rightwingers, to be the only ones who are able to and allowed to own firearms.

Hahahaha I hope this passes. No insurance company would write those policies.
- They should, but not for the kinds of assholes who want to carry guns everywhere.
  
  You don't have to be an asshole to want to carry a gun around everywhere. When you're surrounded by people who openly discuss murdering you for your political stance, or your personal identity, or how you were born, and those people are intent on carrying guns to "defend" against threats that do no exist, meanwhile feeding themselves a steady diet of hate and discontent mixed with conspiracy theories... carrying may be the only thing between you and a lynching.
  In short: take those people's guns and the rest of us can finally abandon these barbaric relics to the anals of history.
- You can insure anything for any reason basically, it's just a matter of price.
  But yeah, this would probably be ridiculously unaffordable for the average person.

Make sense. There's more deaths by firearm than automobile in the US every year. It's actually fairly close at around 40-50k yearly. Which is absolutely insane...
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
All firearm deaths
Number of deaths: 48,830
Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 45,404
- Iirc gun statistics don't differentiate between homicides and suicides and I believe suicides is about half of that statistic.
  
  61%, according to actuaries. It's the same reason that this law isn't all that great in making insurance companies the new gatekeeper for ownership: permit holders are among the lowest risk for firearm incidents. People who have guns and who won't be paying for this insurance are the real actuarial, financial risk. The suicidal and the homicidal will be nearly excluded from the policy risks because they won't be buying the policy. The title saying "gun owners" is incorrect, because this only applies to people who "wear or carry." Thus, the insurance cost will be low.
  From driving_crooner's link: https://www.theactuarymagazine.org/firearm-risk/
- Nope, very wrong. Firearm related deaths are not even in the top 10 causes of death in the USA. Car accidents are far more common causes of death.
  
  CDC disagrees.
  https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
  All firearm deaths
  Number of deaths: 48,830
  Motor vehicle traffic deaths
  Number of deaths: 45,404

can we please stop mandating insurance?
Maybe i'm ok just being sued and having assests forfeited. Maybe im ok just forking over a shit ton of money.
Maybe, just maybe, i dont want to be thrown around by predatory insurance companies looking to wring me of my money for no productive reason (to my benefit)
- Works out well for the offender, but not so much for the offended. If you have no insurance and insufficient assets, where does the rest come from to make the victim whole?
  
  somewhere else.

Unconstitutional.
- Yes, that is why it is called an "amendment"
  Banning slavery was also once unconstitutional.
  
  They're not proposing an amendment.

To everyone against this bill, dont worry, you'll get what you want. The bill wont go anywhere and the mass shootings will continue.

633 comments