11个月前

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.

您正在查看单个线程.

633 留言

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'.
  
  'we'll regulated'
  Can you imagine the chaos if SCOTUS took a second look at the 2nd amendment (in the original document, for some reason.. just go with it) and found an apostrophe?
  It's been chilling there since 1789. How is this the first time somebody noticed it? What tf is "a we'll regulated militia" supposed to entail?? What will be the rippling effects on the state of national politics???
  Find out on the next episode of Alternate History by a Pedantic Loser on Lemmy! (I'm sorry)
  
  I mean there are spelling mistakes in the document I'm pretty sure ;p
  
  Even if that potential court swing does happen, we will still be keeping the guns. Americans have 400 million or more of them already, in private hands, mostly unregistered.
  I would personally never give up that right, regardless of the law. It's a fundamental human right to self defense.
  
  #1 cause of death for children is gunshot. Gotta do something about that even if it does mean you can't have a tomahak missile to protect you from burglary.
  
  That's a very misleading fake statistic and if you look at the total number of children in the USA who are killed OR injured by firearms annually, it amounts to a tiny fraction of the overall population, and 99.9999% of children are not killed or injured by any firearm.
  So I reject your tired "but think of the children" excuse to put any limits on the freedom of American citizens.
  
  Anything that doesn't confirm your bias is a misleading fake statistic. Also lol at the freedom thing because the guns are literally the excuse the government has used to create a massive police state where everything from middle schools to the post office has its own police force authorized to kill or arrest you and send you to do slave labor in the prison system.
  
  It’s not the “gotcha” you might want it to be, for dry jurisprudence reasons.
  If you take the originalist approach Scalia and Thomas advocate, the original intent as written meant not ‘control’ or ‘restriction’ but ‘orderly’ or ‘well provisioned’ when speaking of military units like armies and militias. No fun, that’s the sticky web we have currently so moving on
  THEN you are left with the other end - interpretation using modern means. However there’s a problem here too, because the Bill of Rights follows a template for the text of each amendment outlining “the right of the people [to do X]” and courts have already interpreted that in amendments 1 through 9 that they secure individual rights. 2A has been agreed to be an individual right, just like the other eight, in major cases in 1931 under Miller, 2008 in Heller, and again and again at state and local court levels.
  Go get an amendment and do it right, don’t gut the rest of the Bill of Rights. We undid prohibition, slavery, limited suffrage, etc
  
  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.
  
  It imposes a new financial and bureaucratic penalty on all who wish to exercise their fundamental right of self-defense in any area that is not their home. The text of the 2nd amendment does not say that the right to keep and bear arms shall be conditioned on compliance with everchanging insurance requirements. It says that it shall not be infringed.
  I agree with your point. But our opinions don't matter. There are 6 people on SCOTUS right now who will see this differently than us, and, ultimately, their opinions are the only ones that matter. And their opinions are not subject to appeal or oversight - they are absolute in matters of Constitutional interpretation.
  We have a terrible system that is in need of drastic reform
  
  Self defense with a gun is not a guaranteed right under the second amendment. It doesn't say you have a right to carry a gun. The term "arms" has always had limitations as has the ability to carry a gun. The second amendment is not unlimited.
  The justices you mention are anti second amendment, because they won't allow guns into supreme court sessions.
  
  Keep and bear arms
  It’s literally right there bro
  bear /bâr/
  To carry (something) on one's person from one place to another. “bore the suitcase to the station."
  To move from one place to another while containing or supporting (something); convey or transport: "a train bearing grain."
  To cause to move by or with steady pressure; push. "a boat borne along by the current."
  
  You can bear a pitchfork. That's an arm
  If you want to bear a gun you need insurance. Not happy? Just bear a pitchfork.
  Want to bear a nuclear warhead? Not available to the general population in the us yet. Is this infringing your rights? The constitution says you can bear arms, not that you should be allowed to bear whatever arms you want.
  
  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".
  
  Sorry, but you have no right to cars as there were none in 1776, horse and buggy only.
  
  The Constitution is out of whack. But there is no express right to automobile travel contained therein; there is, however, an express right to firearm possession.
  Formally amending the Constitutional is not possible given current political realities. The formal amendment process requires too high of a threshold than could ever be met in 2024
  The easier way to amend the Constitution is through the informal process known as "stacking the Supreme Court with people who agree with your desired outcomes." Republicans are very good at this.
  
  Is it firearm, or just arm?

633 留言