Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Seems fair. If the risk is low, cost will be low. Let the free market decide, right?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I see what they want to do: no sane insurance company will provide such contracts unless they either:
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.
Are we going to start with the police?
Did…did you even read the brief?
As the bill is currently written, local and state law enforcement officers are not exempt from the insurance requirement.
I think they mean, while on duty. That statement right there is just saying they don't get a pass while they're off the job, just because they're LEOs.
“[This] legislation aims to enhance accountability among police officers, particularly addressing the disproportionate impact of their misuse of deadly force on the black community,” Brownlee said. “In essence, the legislation introduces a mechanism whereby repeated violations of the statute could lead insurance carriers to consider an officer a liability, rendering them uninsurable.”
Doesn’t seem to, at least from the follow up
Well it's not law yet. They're pretty good at pushing for tweaks to laws in their favor.
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.
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 . . .
This would go to the supreme court who would rule that restricting the right to bear arms to someone's financial status is unconstitutional or some shit.
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.
Aside from this being a regressive tax, how many unjustifiable shootings result from people legally permitted to carry a firearm?
Do we really need to help insurance companies make more money? Are thier stocks low?
A bit about me for context: I'm Canadian, I have an interest in guns. I do not own any guns. I can imagine myself owning a gun, but don't want one right now. I know a bit about guns, but not a lot. eg Rim fire vs center fire, and that there isn't anything specific that makes a rifle an assault rifle. I support gun regulation but think Canada's recent changes go too far (it's now impossible for a normal citizen to legally obtain a handgun in Canada).
My two cents on this bill:
Every responsible gun owner ought to have liability insurance that covers their firearms regardless of whether or not it's required.
Objections to such requirements based on the cost of insurance could be overcome in a few ways. Two that occur to me off the top of my head:
a. Individual insurance could be not necessary if the citizen is a member of a well regulated militia (but the state could define what qualifies as a well regulated militia, maybe: shared liability, annual training)
b. The state could offer tax payer funded insurance, for gun owners that agree to certain conditions e.g. gun use, storage (and inspections)
I look forward to the comments.
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
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."
So how much could such insurance actually cost? Does anyone have the numbers to do the maths?
Say a single policy covers any number of guns a person has. So we need a number of people owning guns.
A death is definitely 300k payout. What kind of payout, on average, would injury be? Also 300k because healthcare costs are insane? Less than that?
How many people are killed using a gun every year?
How many are injured?
I wonder what the pure business cost would be for the insurance. I don't actually know how large a profit margin insurance companies run, would curious to sort of blindly apply that here as well.
https://www.theactuarymagazine.org/firearm-risk/
The people who wrote this article are going to be happy with this.
Well, undoubtedly if it is like other types of insurance the insurance will exempt homicide and and suicide. It will probably only cover accidental discharge so it will not help with the two biggest problems.
Disarm the poors! Only our oppressors should have the option of lethal self-defense!
I appreciate that they're trying to do something here, but this doesn't feel like it's aimed at stopping actually dangerous people. This feels like it's aimed at beating on people who were already willing to deal with Maryland's already more-strict-than-usual gun laws.
But I guess we'll see how this pans out in a few years.