New Maryland Gun Liability Insurance Bill Assaults Second Amendment

In the Democratic Party’s latest unconstitutional move in its unrelenting crusade to eradicate Americans’ fundamental rights protected by the Second Amendment, a Maryland House Democrat has introduced a bill that, if passed, would impose a substantial financial barrier on the right to keep and bear arms.

This bill, proposed by Delegate Terri Hill (D), seeks to mandate a minimum of $300,000 in liability insurance for gun owners who wish to carry firearms. At its core, this legislation is not just an infringement on the Second Amendment but also a blatant attack on the less affluent members of society, who will find it financially burdensome to comply with the expensive and exclusionary requirements.

The legislation blatantly disregards recent Supreme Court rulings that emphasize that states like Maryland cannot impose arbitrary restrictions on obtaining a carry permit.

While Hill defends the bill as a pursuit of “common sense” gun control, sparked by a constituent’s concerns over liability in gun-related incidents, the bill’s implications tell a different story. It’s nothing short of an effort to encumber law-abiding citizens with additional hurdles in exercising their constitutional rights. Gun advocate Frank Duffy rightly points out that the legislation is a blatant obstacle for individuals seeking to obtain their concealed carry permits.

Maryland state Delegate Ryan Nawrocki (R) has raised pertinent questions regarding the bill’s constitutionality. In his view, the legislation places an undue and unconstitutional burden on citizens to exercise their right to own a firearm.

Additionally, the Maryland Insurance Commission’s statement that private insurance claim handling of gun-related incidents is murky at best only adds to the confusion and potential ineffectiveness of this legislation. Most insurance policies in Maryland reportedly do not cover incidents that insurers might deem intentional or criminal, further complicating the landscape for law-abiding gun owners.

Moreover, the bill’s current version excludes members of the military and federal law enforcement officers from this insurance requirement while initially omitting local and state law enforcement officers. This oversight, which Hill acknowledged and pledged to correct, raises questions about the bill’s thoroughness and the lawmakers’ understanding of its broader implications.

The legislation’s exemption for unloaded guns further demonstrates a lack of practical understanding of firearms and their use in self-defense. It’s a concession that undermines the purpose of carrying a weapon for protection. This exemption, along with the bill’s other elements, reflects a fundamental disconnect between the realities of gun ownership and the theoretical framework often employed by legislators pushing for stricter gun control measures.

Previous articleNew Poll Shows Trump’s Dominance In South Carolina
Next articleBiden Bets On South Carolina To Bolster Sagging Support