No one would ever consider a charge for exercising a law-abiding citizen’s freedom of speech, of religion or any other of the rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution and its amendments.
But for the right to keep and bear arms, that’s exactly what a Maryland political leader wants to impose.
If Delegate Terri Hill (D) of Howard County gets her way, state residents will be forced to purchase a minimum of $300,000 in liability insurance in order to “wear or carry” a weapon.
The proposal reads: “A person may not wear or carry a firearm unless the person has obtained it and is 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 interests and costs.”
There is an exception to the mandate for law enforcement and military members. An insurance exemption would also be in place if the gun is unloaded.
In other words, useless.
Not surprisingly, Hill borrowed from the gun control extremist dictionary when she described her proposal as a “common sense” measure. But there is nothing sensible about infringing on a person’s fundamental right to self-defense simply because they cannot afford a hefty liability insurance bill.
So, where did this brainstorm originate?
Hill related to Fox 45 News that she had the idea after speaking to a constituent. This person expressed their opinion that gun owners need to “bear some liability in cases where there is damage because of guns being used in ways that cause harm.”
Never mind that there are already criminal and/or civil penalties for negligent actions. Now the free exercise of Second Amendment rights should carry a government-mandated surcharge, which in some circles is called a tax.
Hill’s House Bill 430 was co-sponsored by several other anti-gun delegates. If passed, it would severely alter the rights enjoyed by Maryland residents to protect themselves as guaranteed by both the Constitution and the Supreme Court.
Gun rights advocate Frank Duffy told the outlet that the state is simply putting up another roadblock for the people to lawfully carry firearms. “It is another effort by the state to throw an obstacle in front of people trying to get their concealed carry permits.”
Duffy added, “The Supreme Court made a decision that said that Maryland and other states could not require a good or substantial reason to get a permit.”
It was the high court in 2022 that issued the ruling that Maryland and some other gun-grabbing states are attempting to circumvent. In New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, the majority reinforced the right to bear arms for self-defense outside of the home.
That freedom was being abridged by New York law, which forced law-abiding residents to show specific cause to obtain a concealed carry permit.
Jurists threw this faulty standard out of the window.
Unfortunately, this led to a cascade of state and local governments working to nullify the Supreme Court’s clear intent. Maryland is just the latest example of a jurisdiction attempting to erect new hurdles to clear to exercise a basic right.
There should be no financial barrier for the people to enjoy the freedoms that come with being an American. This misguided proposal deserves to die a quiet death to allow Maryland residents the chance to stand up for themselves against violent criminals.
The Constitution and Supreme Court have clearly spoken.
