By John Q. Hosedrinker As a gun owner, I never thought I would see the day when I would be required to have liability insurance just to exercise my constitutional rights. However, it seems that this day may be coming sooner than I expected, with the introduction of a Maryland bill that would force gun owners to get $300K liability insurance in order to wear or carry a firearm.
At first glance, the idea of requiring insurance for gun owners may seem reasonable. After all, if you are going to carry a weapon, it would be smart to have insurance to protect yourself legally. One of my close friends has a concealed carry license in Illinois, and he always carries a card in his wallet along with his insurance information. He knows that if he ever has to use his weapon, it’s best to let the lawyers do the talking.
Moreover, liability insurance for gun owners is not as expensive as one might think. In fact, it could easily be prorated and added to the price of a license without people even noticing. I pay a mere $28 per month for $2 million in coverage, so it’s not impossible to imagine that $300K in coverage could be as low as $3-4 a month, or less than $50 per year. It’s a small price to pay for the peace of mind that comes with being protected legally.
However, as much as I understand the rationale behind this bill, I can’t help but feel conflicted. On one hand, it may seem like a sensible way to improve accountability and safety. On the other hand, it poses a barrier between constitutional rights and those who can’t afford the insurance. I firmly believe that the right to defend oneself should not be limited to the wealthy. I do not trust rich people, and I am not comfortable with the idea of them being the only ones who can legally bear arms.
Furthermore, it’s hard to ignore the fact that insurance companies would be the ultimate winners in this situation. They would profit from this requirement, but it’s unlikely that it would have a significant impact on gun homicides. Criminals and those who obtain guns illegally are unlikely to be deterred by an insurance requirement. Instead, this kind of legislation would only burden law-abiding citizens, especially those who are already vulnerable and struggling financially.
It’s also important to question the constitutionality of this bill. Can the government really force us to have liability insurance for exercising a right that is explicitly protected by the Constitution? It raises the question of whether other rights, such as voting, could also be subject to similar requirements. Should Trump voters, for example, be required to have liability insurance in case their vote causes someone pain and suffering? Such a requirement would undoubtedly be seen as unconstitutional.
Moreover, history has shown that these types of laws are often blocked by the courts. Despite the good intentions behind them, they are often deemed unconstitutional and are eventually struck down. So, while the idea of requiring liability insurance may sound good in theory, the reality is that it will likely face significant legal challenges.
Another concern is that this bill seems to target legal gun owners, while doing little to address the issue of illegal gun ownership. Those who are involved in criminal activity and obtain guns illegally will not be deterred by this insurance requirement. Instead, it primarily affects responsible citizens who own guns for self-defense purposes. It seems unfair to place the burden on law-abiding citizens while doing little to combat the root causes of gun violence.
Overall, the Maryland bill that would force gun owners to get $300K liability insurance to wear or carry raises significant concerns and challenges. While the idea of promoting accountability and safety is commendable, it is important to consider the potential impact on those who cannot afford insurance and the potential infringement on constitutional rights. Additionally, the effectiveness of such a requirement in curbing gun violence, especially that carried out by criminals, is questionable. It remains to be seen whether this bill will pass or face legal challenges, but it is certainly a topic that warrants further discussion and debate.