this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
832 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2282 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 51 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Awesome. We're going to apply it to cops too, right?

Right?

[–] __Lost__@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Did you read the article? Yes, it applies to police.

[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

LOLLLLLLL if you think it'll make it to a final vote without a law enforcement exemption being added.

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

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.

[–] Poxlox@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago
[–] cosmic_slate@dmv.social -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] nxdefiant@startrek.website 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Some states require nurses to buy their own personal liability insurance, but cops get a pass. Does that seem right?

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 5 points 9 months ago

In a lot of states you need to get a license to be a hairdresser but not to be a cop.

[–] cosmic_slate@dmv.social 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Where did I say it’s right that cops get a pass?

This isn’t Reddit.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

They already have insurance: you as the taxpayer.

[–] cosmic_slate@dmv.social -1 points 9 months ago (3 children)

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?

[–] maryjayjay@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You think you're making a clear point, but you aren't.

[–] cosmic_slate@dmv.social 0 points 9 months ago

I can't help that people are spending more time typing than reading.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

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.

[–] NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social 2 points 9 months ago

Are you being deliberately difficult?

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago

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.

[–] cosmic_slate@dmv.social 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Thanks for typing out a well thought-out, well-reasoned response! Much nicer than a trite one-liner. I am in full agreement.

[–] maryjayjay@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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