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.
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.
Depending on which modern definition of “militia” you choose, the National Guard either is one or isn’t one.
But remember that the Bill of Rights serves to restrict the government from passing laws that infringe on certain rights - so it doesn’t grant you and I rights, it instead prevents the government from impeding on some the Founding Fathers felt The People (white dudes) had. It’d be ass backwards to argue that the government allows us freedom of expression, for example. That’s a natural right.
Building on that, stating that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the National Guard is a shortened way of saying “the government may not infringe on the People’s right to have a government sanctioned and controlled branch of the federal Armed Forces.” Anyone with a cursory understanding of the American Revolution will know that this is not at all what the Founding Fathers intended the 2A to do.
Hello, I would just like to take a moment to say that while yes, at the time “the people” were only considered to be white men (and in some cases white landowners specifically), the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th amendment to the Constitution in 1868, shortly after the end of the civil war (1865), this has not been the case. We fought a whole ass war over this and won. It took a while and people contested it, yes, but now black people have the same rights as everyone else, thankfully.
This doesn’t mean racism is gone, but it does mean the words written in the bill of rights apply to POC regardless of what it meant at the time of the founding fathers. People often use their slave ownership as a means to discredit the words in the constitution and bill of rights, however I think it is more pertinent to discredit their practice of slave ownership and still like “all men are created equal” as a concept how it applies today.
Not to say you were doing that, but you mentioned it so I figured it’s just a good place to say “I for one am happy the BOR now applies to everyone, as it should have back then. Took long e-damn-nuff.”
We could also be realistic and admit that the point of the Second Amendment isn’t really valid anymore. The entire reason it existed was cuz Patrick Henry was scared of slave uprisings. That was its purpose.
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.
https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm
Why does this lie keep popping up? No it never meant that.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/
SCotUS has ruled that your relationship with a militia, well-regulated or otherwise, is irrelevant to your right to bear arms
edit: clarity
deleted by creator
It’s wild that “militia” is still considered relevant.
Like, are we really still in a time when your town of 100 settlers might get attacked by Native Americans from the West and the British from the East?
We gonna ring the bell and dole out muskets to every able-bodied man and boy in the village?
Muskets — and ammo, and gunpowder — from the armory, since it was impractical and dangerous to keep that stuff at home?
And lest we forget, these MFers passed ten amendments right off the bat. They thought we’d be ready to change this shit on the fly as the world evolved.
People say they meant for amendments to be difficult to pass. But they really had no idea what the right calibration would be. It was a new thing! And they had just managed to get unanimous buy-in to start the thing. How hard could a 3/4 vote be?
The militias were mainly for putting down slave revolts
Solely
having a constitutional right to carry a weapon does not shield you from responsibility if you misuse that weapon in a way that violates my rights.
Who said it did?
That’s what the insurance is for
A vehicle is a weapon.
Anything can be a weapon with enough effort and intent. Even your teeth. You want to start restricting everything that could possibly be a weapon?
I mean, as of right now if you use something as a weapon in a way that breaks the law you’re civilly liable. the restrictions are already there and always have been.
But how will militias hunt escaped slaves without the second amendment?
There are places that mandate dog insurance if the dog has been aggressive in the past. It’s at least a partial step in the right direction.
One is a right that shall not be infringed, and the other one is a state-regulated privilege (at least for operating the machine on public roads).
Very simple to understand actually. You can’t put paywalls in front of rights, so this will be dunked right down the shitter if it passes, by the courts.
historically the courts have allowed many restrictions to the second amendment, its only modern revisionism thats reinterpreted “well regulated militia” as “literally anyone except felons” and “the right to bear arms” as “gun companies have a right to unrestricted gun sales”
Oh don’t worry, they’re revising that part too. They want no limits whatsoever. They want felons to have guns.
deleted by creator
What a childish response. Your opinion is garbage.
Rights are something that nobody should ever agree to give up - especially a critical right that enables effective self-defense to the common citizen.
Fortunately there’s nothing you can do about it, as that right at least is well protected by law and the courts.
deleted by creator
Google “poll tax” so you can inform yourself why OP is correct legally.
deleted by creator