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.
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.
deleted by creator
IIRC it has been previously ruled that the 2nd covers ammo as well as firearms.
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.
It takes all of 45 seconds to respond in a civil manner without throwing up strawmen.
Have you seen how the Supreme Court has been ruling on the Second Amendment over the last decade-and-change?