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.
Unconstitutional, can’t require insurance to exercise a right.
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.
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.
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.
And I wonder what the monthly payment would be for $300k in insurance when the vast majority of guns are never being used outside gun ranges. Probably pretty cheap. And conceivably legal the same way SCOTUS decided Obamacare insurance mandates were, not by being a mandate but by having the punishment for not having insurance be a tax.
If it actually decently affordable I actually like this law as a good solution to the problem of guns being potentially very dangerous yet available to everyone, and it’s the same solution as car insurance. If you are using a thing that might cause a lot of damage, prove you can pay for any accidental damage you might cause.
My favorite quote from Thomas Jefferson concerning the 2nd amendment: “You know I got that thang on me. Pull up”
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.
You’re not required to carry insurance before you can post online just in case you defame someone.
Common sense?
Eh, we have a right to travel and states have a right to put limitations on that when it comes to motor-vehicles. The courts have allowed limited oversight on firearms before so this potentially could have legs. I am guessing not in the current Supreme Court though.
The right to travel is an intuited right as a consequence of other explicit rights, but more importantly is a freedom of movement between geographic areas. You can achieve this through walking, riding a bus, riding a horse, hitchhiking, etc, While driving a car is statistically the most frequent way people do this now, it is not the only way. There is no constitutional amendment saying you specifically have a right to drive a car. If there was, drivers licenses would be unconstitutional and mandatory insurance would probably be so as well.
The more equitable example would be requiring you to buy and maintain a passport to leave your town or neighborhood, putting your actual right to travel behind a pay wall. Poll taxes were deemed unconstitutional for the same reason. You can weaponize these to prevent those you deem undesirable from exercising their rights by making it prohibitively expensive to participate. The constitution deems all the natural rights outlined in the Bill of Rights to be the same as breathing; you were born with the ability, not granted it by the government.
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.”
As Chocrates said above, the Fifth Amendment gives the right to free movement, but SCOTUS has approved licencing for motor vehicles, and certain restrictions on firearms, so there’s some precedent, though the current SCOTUS may disagree.
Motor vehicles arent a right, travel is. If motor vehicles were explicitly named then those would be illegal. Motor vehicles are not the sole form of travel.
By that logic, are only guns considered arms? If the right is “keep and bear arms,” wouldn’t that imply the right to keep and bear any arms? Guns aren’t the only type of weapon, just as cars aren’t the only form of travel. If we can put restrictions on certain forms of travel, as long as alternative forms of travel exist…why would the same logic not apply to keeping and bearing arms?
Yes the right implied is to keep an bear any arms. You know private citizens can and have bought tanks right? Why do you presume I would disagree with that?
According to German law crossbows, swords and polearms are arms, but unrestricted (well, you have to be 18 but that’s it) and of those only crossbows, as projectile arms, have storage requirements (locked box, ammo separate). Bows maybe surprisingly aren’t even arms and you can open-carry them without any issue – culturally speaking, only if you’re young enough or look like you’re on your way to a range. Certainly open-carried a bow at times when I was six or seven, thereabouts, granted the thing was so shoddy you couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn with it.
I’d say if the US can restrict you from bearing howitzers and F16s, it can restrict you from bearing guns, or enact requirements proportional to their power as arms and the risks involved.
That’s exactly the point. Nobody arguing in good faith thinks that any US citizen should be able to own missiles or artillery or machine guns. All the reasonable folks agree that the government DOES have the power to limit our right to fire powerb it’s just a matter of where you draw that line. I’d prefer it to be drawn somewhere that meant less than 630 mass shootings a year… maybe somewhere closer to 1 or 2 a year as opposed to 1-2 a day, but I’m clearly a communist/socialist/deep state lizard person.
Yes the right implied is to keep an bear any arms. You know private citizens can and have bought tanks right? Why do you presume I would disagree with that?
Because it’s objectively false. You need a special license to own a machine gun… you can buy a tank, sure, but it will have been demilitarized or would require a destructive device permit from the government. You can’t own a working missle or biological weapon either without being granted special privledge from the government.
deleted by creator
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.
If you understand it so well, you should be able to explain it to everyone else.
I guess it isn’t common sense. You have the right to bear arms, requiring you to pay to carry arms infringes that right.
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.