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.
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.
I think your position would have more bite if it was based solely on ownership, but it’s about carry. If it gets to the point of rich people and poor people shooting at each other in the streets, it won’t matter much what the law is on this and people will be bringing their guns out.
When black panters were around, they would just carry the weapons, to show that if some white nationalist attack, they will not just sit there. Now whenever cops see someone marching with a gun, to protect the union strike or whatever, they can just arrest them, without any shooting even occurring. While anyone backed by the rich, will be able to pass by police with AR 15 with no problem. Just imagine two groups that started as a peacful protest being face to face, while one group is heavily armed and other is not.
If the issue is that the police are going to favor the rich, it matters not what the law is, as that same example you just gave could be true regardless of this insurance law.
This bill is making it legal to favor the rich. They can stop everyone and ask for papers, but those who represent the interest of the capitalist class will be able to have them, while the working class won’t.
I get that it favors the rich because it costs money. The original claim is that this is some protection of the rich, which I disagree with, because it only applies to carry. And, no, they won’t be able to just stop anyone, the 4th amendment still would exist.
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?
Then fucking come up with gun control that doesn’t focus on the poor.
The Left says “we should do this because it’s better for everyone”. The Right says “Yeah, but ONLY do it to the poor! Thank you”
You guys have your priorities fucked up.the left should say “don’t give a shit about guns, we need universal healthcare”. The right can’t put a fucking thought together by themselves, let’s stop assuming all right-wingers are rich, most trump voters are trailer park trash
Practically all gun deaths are from suicides and organized crime.
It’s amazing that people believe the DNC when they say that 10 round mag limits and pistol grip bans are the answer, when they could just shift gears and give us what everyone wants. Single payer healthcare, better schools and cheaper/free college, higher pay so people don’t resort to crime to make ends meet…
But those problems are harder to solve, so let’s wipe our ass with the Bill of Rights instead and convince people to cheer us on while we do it.
This is what happens when you start falling for right-wing ideas disguised as left-wing. The problem never was that constitution is allowing for people to hurt each other, the problem is that the working class is disproportionally hurt by shootings and now they will give even more power away from the poor and allow the rich kids to shoot at civil-rights protesters.
Pretty sure I haven’t fell for right wing ideas in a few decades. Bear in mind I’m not from thebstates and this all thing of carryingnguns makes me think of somalia, not a civilized western country.
I’ve been to civil rights protests elsewhere, no firearms but acab everywhere. I’d expect carrying (and showing) a gun would be making l rich kids and the pigs a favour: they can now write off your murder as self defence even if it was filmed by a body cam.
They can still claim self defence that they were attacked by a knife or a rock, changes nothing.
Right-wing politics is everything that promotes giving power of one group over the other. Giving the rich more power to own weapons, while taking it away from working class, is a right-wing idea, by definition. It is not right-wing to claim everybody should own weapons, it is right-wing to claim, only the rich, or only the state or only the white should own the weapons, while others are not allowed,
Sorry that might be the politically correct definition that kids give it today to feel good and click on each other but every bill, law or decision shifts power from a group to another and that’s not always a bad thing. And not always a right wing thing.
It is only definition that makes sense. There is a good video about it. If you shift power back to the people that are a working class, or in other words, if it promotes equality in decision-making power, than it is a left-wing policy. If it is a law that gives more power to the ruling/capitalist/rich class, it is a right-wing policy.
Yeah, I am anti gun, but if I lived in America, I’d definitely have one
That is cause the US is such a shithole, you need a gun to feel safe.
Just like any other developing nation with a gun problem.
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.
Seems fair. If the risk is low, cost will be low. Let the free market decide, right?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How can you say it’s free market if it’s literally mandatory? Call it tax, but it won’t even be paid to the budget. Instead some private insurance companies would benefit from that. Yay legislators?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Edit: And yeah, the bill seems to target some police on this matter, but I really, really doubt it’s going to do much about issues related to police brutality.
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.
Some states require nurses to buy their own personal liability insurance, but cops get a pass. Does that seem right?
Where did I say it’s right that cops get a pass?
This isn’t Reddit.
They already have insurance: you as the taxpayer.
Unconstitutional, can’t require insurance to exercise a right.
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.
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.
Any precedent you can cite on this?
Google “poll tax”.
Poll taxes had to be explicitly banned in the 24th Amendment which is specific to voting. This is actually an argument against the idea that it’s unconstitutional, because an amendment wouldn’t have been necessary if it was already unconstitutional to force payment to exercise a right.
Good example, thanks.
Common sense?
I find “common sense” to be used almost exclusively when a person can’t come up with an actually reason to support their point. This is especially true here because there is very little about constitutional law that is as easy as “common sense.”
Lmao. Sounds like you don’t understand what a constitutional right is.
The best argument you can come up with is “common sense” but it’s me who doesn’t understand constitutional rights. Lol It’s still early, but I’m going to bet that this is the projection of the day.
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.
Super vague. You could interpret that regulated to mean that the militia needs to be skilled or trained as well, which would support OPs opinion.
Edit: typo
It’s already regulated.
This is a restriction for poor people and nothing more.
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.
My favorite quote from Thomas Jefferson concerning the 2nd amendment: “You know I got that thang on me. Pull up”
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.
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.
Well yeah, granted. It just chafes me every time someone uses SCOTUS as an authority after Robert’s court has spent that last couple decades chipping away at our rights.
Roberts always struck me as partially reasonable. He has a huge blind spot when it came to the voting rights act and Citizens United, but he’s not that extreme all the time.
The court didn’t REALLY turn until the Trump appointees, who all need to be removed.
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”.
None of those other amendment rights are an inherent physical danger to innocent people. The Second Amendment is.
Uhm…next one sort of is. Unless you want to open your home to strangers with weapons and training.
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."
A weapon poses an inherent danger no matter how it’s carried or not carried. It’s the very nature of a weapon. Having insurance makes sense.
Hopefully the criminals who typically commit robberies, murders, etc will forgo that lifestyle when they remember they don’t have the insurance to do it. I can’t see anywhere this law would not he a benefit to all.
This way you get only criminals carrying a gun, not criminal and idiots. Sounds like a small win to me
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.
A gun or an assault rifle is specifically designed to harm and kill people. At a distance no less. A sword? Maybe. But it’s not nearly as deadly and efficient, so it could be insured at a lower rate.
Go live in whatever dystopian hell hole you want. Insurance is not the answer. Insurance is a fucking scam, propped up by corporate lobbyists.
Guns aren’t tools. People with guns are the tools.
You’re an idiot if you think a gun isn’t a tool.
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.
Monetary compensation for harm is very common in our society. E.g. that why a person who commits sexual assault pays compensation to the victim. Didn’t solve the problem, but it compensates an innocent victim. Same in a shooting.
The insurance should encourage responsible gun ownership. Insurance companies can easily adjust premiums based on training/licensing and premiums would be higher or lower depending on their risk calculation for the given type of weapon. Insurance can place extra requirements on storage and transport that might go well beyond the scope of what’s allowed by law.
A cheap insurance plan would likely have more restrictions than an expensive one, plus your premiums would skyrocket after an incident, further encouraging responsible behavior
There’s literally FUCKING LAWS requiring you to be responsible.
You’re a fucking idiot if you think INSURANCE PREMIUMS are the solution to violence.
Like anybody who has murder in their heart will think twice because of an extra fee tacked on.
Insurance can have additional requirements beyond the law. For example my homeowner’s insurance does not allow trampolines on the property. There’s no law against trampolines but my homeowner’s insurance made the determination that a trampoline is too big of a risk for them.
This is why I said:
Insurance can place extra requirements…that might go well beyond the scope of what’s required by law.
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”
In a common sense society that doesnt worship a single phrase from a 200 year old document, yes.
“Well regulated” does not mean now what it meant back then. In the context of the constitutional times “regulated” meant trained, supplied, and such shape ready to fight instead of legislated or controlled by the government.
You could also argue that the National Guard is the well regulated militia.
How do you know that? It doesn’t say that in the Constitution.
Seems Oxford dictionary has taken it upon themselves to become a subscription based service so I can no longer access these historical definitions, but thankfully since this topic has already been exhausted someone else recorded a few on a site they host. These are still on Oxford I’m sure just behind that paywall if you wanna verify.
But how will militias hunt escaped slaves without the second amendment?
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.
Some of us did have insurance, then a bunch of anti-gun groups pressured the payment processors to stop working with companies that offered “murder insurance.”
Man, people will really twist anything into a crime if it fits their agenda, won’t they.
Even if it isn’t mandatory, having liability insurance to cover accidental death or injury claims seems like a sensible idea if you’re a responsible gun owner. And I’m pretty sure that if you DO commit murder, the courts will have something to say about it, not to mention the policy probably won’t pay out if it was intentional. Which means they’d have an incentive to actually investigate every claim to make SURE it wasn’t murder before they pay you, so you’d actually be likely to have more scrutiny, not less.
Sounds like a step in the right direction. Force people to get insurance to keep a deadly weapon, and at the same time prevent insurance companies from offering that service. A convoluted way to ban private citizens owning guns in a civilised country sounds good regardless?
It’s the reason we can’t make progress at all on guns.
There are people in the anti-gun crowd who have demonstrated time and again that they aren’t acting in good faith when they offer “reasonable” solutions, so the pro-gun crowd now refuses to compromise on anything.
You know why it took so long to get background checks for firearm purchases? It’s because gun-owners were afraid of a firearm registry that would eventually be used to confiscate their guns. And that was absolutely a goal of the anti-gun crowd.
You know what got us the background checks? Having a compromise that banned the government from keeping a registry of gun owners, but having dealers keep private records of sales so that any specific firearm could be traced from its manufacturer to the first buyer. It was an elegant solution that drastically improved matters, even if it didn’t solve everything.
And that’s what compromise allows us to do - move forward little by little.
I would love to have a firearm with smart safety features like a fingerprint scanner, but the anti-gun crowd prevents them from being developed because they pushed for laws that would outlaw all guns that don’t have the features once they become available on any gun. The result was every gun manufacturer instantly stopped developing the tech to keep their entire portfolios from being banned.
In California, newer pistols, often with improved safety and reliability, are illegal to sell because any new pistol there is required to have a serial number stamp on the firing pin to mark the primer - a feature that doesn’t exist. So you’ve got guns that are decades out of date being sold new there because they’re all that’s legal. Glock still manufacturers pistols that are old enough they’re out of patent because they can be sold in California. Taurus pistols that have killed people because they fire when shaken are legal there, but the newer ones that fixed the safety features are not.
NICS isn’t available to the general public for firearm sales because the anti-gun crowd won’t settle for that improvement for the time being, and instead wants to go all-in on background checks and a transfer of ownership for lending a gun to a buddy going hunting. Instead of slow-rolling the path to (very necessary) universal background checks, progress is frozen. Straw purchases are easier because gun owners have learned throgh experience not to trust the “other side.”
Nobody on either side is willing to compromise on anything anymore and it’s depressing, because progress isn’t being made. Gun control advocates’ overzealousness is a textbook example of letting perfect get in the way of good. Instead of slow progress we’re moving backwards.
I would love to have a firearm with smart safety features like a fingerprint scanner, but the anti-gun crowd prevents them from being developed because they pushed for laws that would outlaw all guns that don’t have the features once they become available on any gun. The result was every gun manufacturer instantly stopped developing the tech to keep their entire portfolios from being banned.
I think the biofire gun might conform to the criteria that you’re looking for, but it strikes me more as a “nightstand” gun than maybe something you might want to carry around, and I dunno what you really want your gun for.
I think the tech isn’t quite there for a self defense gun because of that stupid New Jersey law that set us back decades.
I’d want it for hunting and target-shooting guns where the firearm failing to fire is an annoyance rather than something that will get you killed.
My self-defense pistol is on my body or unloaded in a locked safe in a hidden compartment on my vehicle with the mag and ammunition locked elsewhere.
But I can’t hide my long guns or target pistols as well.
I mean if you just want something for hunting or plinking, I feel like any classic bolt action rifle would probably be fine, no? The reasoning being that it’s a relatively low risk gun generally, if someone else decides to steal it, compared to like, a tricked out ar-15, and it’s also much cheaper than that, as well. Depending on what you’re wanting to hunt, you could have an air gun, or a much smaller caliber, as well, and improve the cost and relative safety. If you’re looking for hiding and hunting guns, then something that you can take down might be a good call, and then you could store the two halves in different places.
I dunno, I’m assuming you’re wanting to hide your guns from people who might steal them, rather than like, your kids, or friends, or some sort of accidental discharge situation, cause if that was the case, I would probably just recommend one of those trigger locks that everyone tends to poo-poo on, which would pretty easily prevent any accidental idiocy as far as other people are concerned, but not not prevent a committed criminal from breaking through it, and they might steal it pretty easily as well. I guess it doesn’t matter what you end up getting as much, but if you’re really concerned, you could put a bike lock through the magwell, and out of the chamber, and then through some harder piece of your car, so nobody can get it out unless they’re bringing a hacksaw, or unless they’re a great lockpick. I would recommend anything you might get with a tubular lock, those are pretty hard to open, kind of overkill.
I’m okay in my personal setup really. I’ve got plenty of firearms and they’re kept in safes. But I think there’s a plane for smart guns for those who don’t have a thousand dollars to spend in safes.
And there isn’t a gun lock made that can’t be bypassed in seconds. They’re famously insufficient for keeping out curious kids.
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.
Number 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 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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cope. Seethe.
No arguments: you cope.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There’s a difference between bureaucratic bullshittery and willfully making things worse for one specific class.
And what is that difference?
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.
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
Responsible gun ownership? No. Unfortunately, you have too many uneducated and irresponsible people out there that shouldn’t have access to a lot of things, much less guns.
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.
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.
It’s only logical because the larger the hole, the more painful the accidental shot. I’m just using logic 😄.
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.
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.
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.
Well when all the classes are only offered during the week (or charge more for weekend classes), taking two days off work and spending a whole paycheck just on a permit is rather difficult.
Sir, that is unlicensed speech. You’ll need to take 16 hours of a $400 class and pay a $200 fee for a license to speak that way.
It should be a required safety test like with driver’s licenses, a reasonable compromise that you can also add immediate failure states to and doesn’t add an undue time and cost burden to people who aren’t dumbasses, unlike a class.
Get a child safety question wrong?
Fail.
Say you have the right to shoot a fleeing burglar in the back?
Also fail.
you don’t have the right to shoot a burglar in the front. loss of property isn’t an excusable reason to shoot someone. fear of bodily harm or death for you or someone else is.
Jeez, it sure would be awkward for your argument if a home invasion carried an inherent threat, which is why most robberies occur when no one is home to be threatened.
jeez it sure would be awkward if your argument made any sense. let me put it in caps for you. INHERENT THREAT.
But after that you can use that speech to kill a room full of children or a fleeing partner right?
I’m just going to come out and say it: Fuck your gun “rights”. I absolutely support it being taken away from you. It’s just as immoral as the right to own slaves was.
You’re hiding behind the word “right” because you know the only way to defend permissive gun laws is pretending that domestic abusers having poorly secured AR-15s is up there with “bodily autonomy” or “freedom of beliefs”.
Would you be playing your little “only bad guys take away rights” games if people had the “right” to help themselves to your daughters body? To kill you on a whim because of your skin color?
After all, anything you call a “right” is inherently good and ethical and to be preserved at all costs.
But after that you can use that speech to kill a room full of children or a fleeing partner right?
Oh shit they made school shootings legal if you have a permit? Missed that update.
right" to help themselves to your daughters body? To kill you on a whim because of your skin color?
Your rights end where another’s begin, you are not entitled to another’s body or life, you are however entitled to the tools with which to defend yourself if someone does try to violate your rights to your body or life. In your scenario, or should I say “currently,” I actually have the right to shoot the rapist or racist murderer.
Oh shit they made school shootings legal if you have a permit? Missed that update
They may as well given the disgustingly low bar you set for gun owners.
The laws the pro-gun community holds up as ideal couldn’t prevent the sale of a gun to a teenager with the nickname “school shooter” and a history of animal abuse, death and rape threats, days before he did a school shooting.
If you’re going to staunchly oppose gun control, why not just come out and say that you support selling semi-automatic weapons to far-right extremists, deeply disturbed men in the throes of psychosis, people who hit their partners and people who can’t secure their firearms from children?
Your rights end where another’s begin, you are not entitled to another’s body or life
I think you mean that other people’s rights end where yours begin.
After all, you have no problem bankrolling the gun-lobby who in turn fund the Republicans that openly campaign on a platform of taking away the rights of women and minorities.
Does a child have a right to safety and education? Only at the discretion of whatever insane fuckstick you’ve armed today because your guns are more important that someone else’s children.
I actually have the right to shoot the rapist or racist murderer.
And those rapists and murderers have the right to own guns because you insisted on it. Should we look at their statistics to see how that works out for everyone?
Oh what a shocking plot twist, it works out great for your as you sit there delivering on fuck all of your promises and it works out great for the rapists and racists.
Your right come at the expense of others and you’re not even good at hiding it.
They may as well given the disgustingly low bar you set for gun owners.
The laws the pro-gun community holds up as ideal couldn’t prevent the sale of a gun to a teenager with the nickname “school shooter” and a history of animal abuse, death and rape threats, days before he did a school shooting.
Translation: “I don’t know a damn thing about how to buy a gun in the US and I’m probably british.”
I think you mean that other people’s rights end where yours begin.
If you’re having difficulty parsing the statement it means that you don’t have the right to deprive another of their rights. I know it can be confusing for people like you who don’t like rights, so I understand.
After all, you have no problem bankrolling the gun-lobby
Well find me a gun company that …isn’t a gun company? I guess? What are your standards here lmao? Gotta buy them from the people who sell em, you ever buy weed in the US pre-'10? If yes, you feel bad about supporting the Sinaloa Cartel Lobby? Know what? I blame you, they wouldn’t have to lobby if people weren’t always trying to ban them.
Does a child have a right to safety and education?
Yes.
Only at the discretion of whatever insane fuckstick you’ve armed today because your guns are more important that someone else’s children.
Oh shit they made school shootings legal if you have a permit? Missed that update
And those rapists and murderers have the right to own guns because you insisted on it.
Well, not if they are a prohibited purchaser. And I’d rather their victims be able to have them too than just get raped and murdered at knifepoint instead. “You can run from knife,” ahh shaddup you better be fast then with that ableist take, and don’t try to pretend you weren’t about to type that shit either y’all are too predictable.
Should we look at their statistics to see how that works out for everyone?
Yes. According to John Lott, Gary Kleck, and the CDC, the estimate for defensive gun use in the 90s was somewhere between 500,000 and 3,000,000 times per year. The study in question was survey based, and included “defensive display,” which is a defense in which simply making the attacker aware of the presence of a firearm is enough to scare them off. Due to this, and the wide gap between the high/low end, the veracity of this study has been debated. However, according to a recent Harvard study done to discredit that “myth of the good guy with a gun,” they say a “more realistic estimate” of defensive gun use which does NOT include defensive display and is based solely off verifiable police reports is 100,000 per year.
Well, that takes care of the DGU, what about the deaths? Surely more than 100k/yr! Let’s see here, our murder rate yearly according to the FBI is about 15,000/yr.… Hol’ up, 15,000 homicides/yr? Shit, that is MUCH less than 100,000 dgu/yr. Well alright alright I know what’ll get those self defenders! The total gun death rate including homicides, suicides, and accidents! Surely there’s 1,000,000/yr! In 2021, there were a total of 48,830 firearm deaths. Hmm well shit. Turns out that doesn’t do it either, since 48,830<100,000. Damn, I guess guns are used in defense more than deaths. Who’da thunk it?
Oh what a shocking plot twist, it works out great for your as you sit there delivering on fuck all of your promises and it works out great for the rapists and racists.
I’ll twist your twister with the 100,000 people it DID work out great for every year, that’s 51,170 more twists! Get twisted on, go twist yourself.
Your right come at the expense of others
Your Mama comes at the expense of others, and it isn’t even that expensive.
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.
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.
“Being prepared” is running away. 100% of the time.
Those “good guys w/ a guy” stories are legit almost always an off-duty cop who knows how to handle the situation (and the gun)
You dweeb come-and-take-its don’t need it at a Walmart
So your advice to people in an active shooter situation is to always run? Not seek cover? Not stay low and observe the situation? Just run 100% of the time? I pray you don’t take your own advice.
Honest lol
Can you run 1200fps?
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.
“It’s the black peoples fault”.
Half the American women murdered in their last decade were killed by their partner, but there’s no “funding and diversion efforts” for white guys who can’t control their emotions.
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.
