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.
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.
thinking they need a gun on them at all times
thinking they’re in danger without a gun
Yes, that’s what was said
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.
Ok, I’ll try a better analogy. Why not require fist-punching insurance for anyone who wants to take their hands out in public?
Personal liability insurance exists. It’s often included in home or renter’s insurance. If someone knows they’re likely to end up in a lawsuit because they love punching people, it would behoove them to get that.
But the damage that can be done by a pair of fists is often a low enough dollar number (and jail time) that it can reasonably be paid by the person owning them. A broken orbital socket is a hell of a lot cheaper than, say, three people’s lives. There’s also unlikely to be collateral damage with fists, since they can only travel so far. Most people can’t pay for the damages in a shooting event, and right now that cost is instead being covered by taxpayers.
Insurance isn’t for the small things, like a broken window or punching someone. It’s for very expensive, sometimes catastrophic damage.
Well, CCW insurance really only covers legal costs associated with CCW use. Unfortunately in some states, it’s entirely possible (and in some states likely!) that someone who uses their firearm in self defense can get charged with a crime or sued by their attackers, regardless of how justified their use of force was.
I’m aware of some policies that cover third party damages like hospital bills and property damage, but the victims in this case are never held liable anyway.
So am I missing something? Especially given that practically all gun violence and deaths come from suicide and organized crime, how does this bill help anyone? CCW holders are statistically much less likely to break laws than those who don’t have a license, these people really shouldn’t worry anyone. This reeks of political posturing to me.
Edit: Just read that the law requires bodily harm and property damage coverage, so nevermind. The only scenario where the CCW holder would be liable for those damages is if their use of force isn’t justified, so I’m still not sure how this helps anyone.
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).
That’s still not going to stop any crimes. They still have the right to buy it, if they can pass the background check. If they want to commit a crime with it, the fact that it’s illegal to do so without insurance means nothing and prevents nothing.
Yeah, that’s the typical “but murder is already illegal!” pro-gun argument. I don’t think insurance policies are a good solution, but if it at least prevents the “mostly law-abiding citizen with anger issues who will use a gun against someone if given an excuse, but is too much of a pussy to carry one around illegally” from getting a gun, then that’s better than nothing.
You still don’t seem to understand that this would not prevent anyone from getting a gun. It would not, read up on the details.
I can read. My point is that lots of people buy a gun specifically to carry it in public. If they know they are uninsurable and won’t be able to carry it without getting into legal trouble (assuming there is a dissuasive penalty for illegally carrying… which is doubtful), they might not get a gun.
Sure, you can make up a lot a scenarios where this law is completely ineffective but you also can’t pretend that it necessarily won’t have any effect.
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.
The only sure thing is that insurance companies will try to make as much money off this as possible, especially if it becomes required by law to have.
Don’t some states have laws about profitability caps on insurance?
There were stories of some insurance companies refunding policy holders during COVID due to excess profits.
That’s where competition is important. Get a bunch of insurers in the market and the profits they leech will be minimal. But health insurance is a fucking debacle over profits, so I definitely hear your concern.
Ask Floridians looking for flood or even just normal home insurance how competition is working for them.
The problem there is insuring housing isn’t financially viable because climate change has made it too costly to mass-build houses as often as they are destroyed. That’s not really similar to the gun violence marketplace.
The idea her is if folks can persuade insurance companies that they are stable and responsible enough, insurance for them will be cheap. Meanwhile folks with domestic violence records or violent felonies would be priced out of having a gun or at least have the ability to bear the financial burden if something goes wrong. This is by no means a great solution, but 2A absolutists have the supreme court and the law is essentially that reasonable regulation isn’t possible.
Until that changes, I’ll accept a market solution.
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.
deleted by creator
Free market pricing. Requiring someone to be indemnified when they are taking on risk greater than they could ever hope to repay if something goes wrong seems perfectly reasonable to me.
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 pay for car accidents and they don’t pay out for intentional stuff. You don’t really hear much about accidental shootings from people while they’re out carrying. The act of carrying isn’t dangerous.
The act of carrying is inherently more dangerous than not. That is an indisputable fact that you don’t even need statistics to know. I am infinitely more likely to die by a firearm if it exists in the first place rather than not.
People living with handgun owners died by homicide at twice the rate of their neighbors in gun-free homes. That difference was driven largely by homicides at home, which were three times more common among people living with handgun owners.
I claim you’re ignorant and your link is not anything to do with being out conceal carrying. Your argument also is of “guns not existing” rather than one of “people wanting to legally carry needing to pay.”
They are not the same thing.
I provided a link to evidence illustrating my point that the presence of a gun presents a greater risk of dying to a firearm. The study is about a different situation, but both deal with the presence of firearms. I would welcome evidence to the contrary rather than insults because I am engaging you here in good faith.
I say adding a gun to any situation increases the chances of a gun being used simply because it is present. More guns in more places = more opportunities for them to be used. I think that is simple logic, and again I welcome you to refute it.
This is something that requires people who carry weapons in public to be capable of providing restitution to anyone harmed by their actions. I can’t see a massive harm in it other than disproportionately affecting the poor.
Obviously, if no guns exist, no guns can be used. That isn’t even worth you bringing up. But since they do exist and are present, this is just a silly money grab and/or a way to restrict and even further incarcerate the poor half of the country. Making someone pay money to be allowed to carry around anything is just asinine. What next? Shall we charge you a fee for your propane bottle because you can make it explode? Your pencil because you can stab someone with it? Charge extra if you live above the 2nd story because you could push someone to their death?
There are literally millions of people who conceal carry every day. The ones who would pay insurance or simply stop carrying aren’t the ones hurting people. The “insurance” would just be for them. It wouldn’t be for the people you want to worry about.
Yeah but if we can’t drive around shooting our guns as a protected freedom of expression, are we really free?
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?
Well then everyone who doesn’t carry should be paying the insurance by your logic.
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.
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
What you’re saying doesn’t make any sense at all.
Cops are extremely difficult to sue directly. Your city/town pays for the settlement. They already have insurance: you as the taxpayer.
This kind of reaction-driven response does nothing to help countering police misconduct or information around it but whatever’s good for the upvotes I guess.
Some states require nurses to buy their own personal liability insurance, but cops get a pass. Does that seem right?
In a lot of states you need to get a license to be a hairdresser but not to be a cop.
Where did I say it’s right that cops get a pass?
This isn’t Reddit.
They already have insurance: you as the taxpayer.
TIL stating a fact means I support it.
Did I open the wrong app this morning on my phone? Is this Lemmy/Kbin or Reddit?
You think you’re making a clear point, but you aren’t.
I can’t help that people are spending more time typing than reading.
You clearly said cops having liability insurance doesn’t make any sense and then doubled down by arguing that it’s because they have us the taxpayers instead.
If cops needed to get individual insurance and the ones that were reckless had to pay more or maybe even stop being cops because they can’t be insured, it would probably help.
Regardless, it comes off as if you are against it on top of belittling the above poster.
Are you being deliberately difficult?
What I’m saying makes perfect sense.
Police misconduct is so rampant specifically because the taxpayer picks up the tab. Cops themselves can weasel out of being responsible for just about anything because they’re shielded by their department, or city, or state, or whatever. But if we held them personally accountable – financially, in this case – that’d stop that bullshit quick smart and in a hurry. Doctors have to carry insurance personally. So do truck drivers. You want to know why? Because those jobs hold the potential for catastrophically fucking up, with consequences very likely to affect other people. Why should cops be any different?
At the very least this should apply to all police who are not currently clocked in, in uniform, and on duty. Out here in the real world they have to play by the same rules as the rest of us.
Ha. Actually, from TFA:
As the bill is currently written, local and state law enforcement officers are not exempt from the insurance requirement.
So guess who else agrees with me.
Thanks for typing out a well thought-out, well-reasoned response! Much nicer than a trite one-liner. I am in full agreement.
I agree with you overall, but I expect taxes will just go up by however much is required to cover the insurance for the officers, so we will continue to pay for their malfeasance.
What they’re saying does make sense, it would just have to come with a few additional changes. Like making law enforcement officers easier to sue directly. Colorado has already revoked qualified immunity. It seems like you are being overly pedantic. No single step will fix the problem but the comment you are replying to is a step in a direction to address the issue
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 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?
Is that a fixed range, or will the cost just go up for the folk that some corporation thinks shouldn’t carry a gun?
The government should just do it’s fucking job and provide the insurance and background check. Its a bad move to relegate this to private parties. Atleast with the government the people can vote who is in power.
So you guys don’t have universal healthcare but it makes sense for the taxpayers to subsidise insurance and background checks so everyone can carry a gun and be happy, and sobthe the poor are not left out from this inalienable right that is carrying a gun in public like in the western movies?
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.
I’d to ask what should then we do in case of a dictatorship, for example? Just lay down and fear the F-35s?
Yes, even if everyone has a wallmat glock we’d outgunned by a mile by let’s say the military, but also you can’t just bomb and kill the shit out of your labor and infrastructure — I mean, you can, also you can bomb and kill enough to get them to submit, but that is just not something you can just keep doing indefinetly. It is also very hard to maintain a economy going with a big insurrection going and there is were guns bring a point, they give you at least a figthing chance, way better than nothing.
I’d also like to point out the ad hominem of calling the hypotetical gun owner a “McFucksHisSister” it brings nothing of value to the conversation.
I also do not belive carrying a gun around is something needed -by almost anyone- but ownership is important.
Also important to note is that the military is not some faceless automaton that does whatever they’re told. It’s very hard to justify killing the family and townspeople and neighbours of the people that you send to commit the killing. If we get to a state where it isn’t hard, we’re already lost as a people.
Don’t know about the US, but in most places the military wouldn’t send you tonserve or even less fight to, say, Shithole, Alabama if you are from there. Of course you wouldn’t shoot your uncle or brother. They figured this out centuries ago, before firearms.
I’d like to agree with you, but given the experiences and horrors carried out by the military in my country (not the USA) I just can’t. I guess I agree with your last sentence, and I really hope you guys (whoever is reading) do better than us.
Cope. Seethe.
No arguments: you cope.
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.
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.
They’ll get Qualified Liability.
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.
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.
I don’t know, based off the information you’re working with, we’re assuming that the gun insurers would be on the hook for life insurance claims?
That’s different than liability, which is what’s proposed here
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.
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 . . .
I guess i misunderstood this line… the first part sure. i guess. there are poor white people too. but ok. the second part sounds like you’re being sarcastic about the first part… which is contradicted by the numbers you posted… so… i guess im still confused as to your stance.
Concern trolling, classic.
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.
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.
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.
Aside from this being a regressive tax, how many unjustifiable shootings result from people legally permitted to carry a firearm?
Do we really need to help insurance companies make more money? Are thier stocks low?
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
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.
-
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.
