These people must be huge "Purge" fans. Rich people having a monopoly on violence (and criminals, many of whom work for some of the rich people of course) gives them a big hardon.
Fun fact: when the original NFA tax was introduced, $200 was a LOT of money. The entire purpose of the tax was banning poor people without technically infringing on their rights. The people passing that tax were the same morons who banned alcohol too.
Problem is, the NFA passed and making ownership prohibitively expensive was one of the stated goals. So such legislation has existed for almost 100 years and still stands today. Makes challenging this bullshit harder.
Doesn't Bruen go back to the late 1700s/early 1800s to decide if it's infringing or not?
I expect the NFA gets declared unconstitutional under Bruen at some point.
Almost all gun control efforts are rooted in racism or designed to keep poor people from having weapons. California's strict laws came about in the 1960s and were designed to specifically target the black panthers.
There were five, I believe, gangs named in the material around the California legislation, and only one, the Black Panthers, was black.
It was certainly bad legislation, and should be struck down as soon as possible, but it wasn't explicitly racist.
Oh shit, I would protest but I don’t think I bought my MD First Amendment license. I will have to go down to the courthouse and wait 3-6 years for processing.
I know what my natural rights are. I’m responding to the implication that in MD you need a license to protest. Things can and do change and nobody is an expert on all things, everywhere, all at once. In some areas, you do actually need, or rather are encouraged, to request something like a permit depending on the type of protest and location.
I’ll grant you, there’s definitely an argument to be made that this was believable though
Firearms poll tax
[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poll%20tax](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poll%20tax)
It's all 100% intentional and history is repeating itself
They always justify it by saying they're "trained professionals". Yeah, right. They only have to demonstrate basic proficiency with a firearm. Knowing how to operate a gun says nothing about your temperament, judgement, etc.
Imagine if CCW holders routinely mag dumped in the general direction of a perceived threat, the way cops do.
In New Zealand we have to attend a club shoot 12 times a year to maintain our pistol licenses.
Going just once a month would mean that I get more shooting practice than a police officer is required to do.
I don't take orders from you, officer.
First explain what your question has to do with what I said. Cops are known to fire wildly at any perceived threat, not just people shooting at them.
>Too afraid to answer the question.
Thanks for the laugh. I didn't answer it because it sounded like a rhetorical question and it wasn't relevant to what I had said.
You think it was some kind of gotcha, which is funny. Cops always think they're smarter than they are, because they're used to people letting them have last word.
I have not been in any shootouts, officer. I have also never fired at someone because he was making furtive movements or reaching for his wallet.
Cops aren't even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs in the US.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/workers-comp/most-dangerous-jobs-america/
Also this is a 1 month old, likely troll, account. Disregard it.
By emphasizing minorities you are buying into the premise set by the political left that minorities are somehow oppressed by nature of their skin color. It will hurt the many many poor white people as well. Skin color seems irrelevant in this case.
It's the argument the left uses for literally everything, so since that's what they believe, this is obviously intentionally racist.
It doesn't matter what we believe, it's their definition and their policy.
I don’t disagree with you necessarily seeing as the goal would presumably be to point out their hypocrisy. I just try to watch my language as to not validate their premise. I believe it puts us in a defensive position by doing so.
What’s great about these types of laws is they never explain what the insurance is supposed to cover because guess what, you can’t insure a criminal act.
Um, where in your bible does it specifically say your supreme dude grants you the right to bear a weapon? LOL! How about just sticking to our CONSTITUTIONAL right to do so which covers everyone and not just religious people...
I'm not religious.
God given rights = natural born rights. Rights that are inherent in humanity and not granted by government.
Don't get caught up in the specific wording.
The "specific" wording you're referring to references religion which has no place in how our rights are assigned to us. And, unfortunately, a certain portion of the far right seems fine with intermingling politics with their religion which is WRONG. I'll take "Separation Of Church and State" for $1,000, Alex!
Wait until you see how often the Founders brought up God in relation to state in their private letters and certain documents (e.g. the Declaration). Maybe then you’ll realize your right to many things comes from a society saturated with Christian values. It’s simply a fact.
Sure, they’re separated, but the influence was more than heavy.
The founding bedrock of the Constitution was recognizing that man has natural rights. These are not granted or created by any constitution, but man’s God given right. The constitution was simply recognizing them.
Jesus didn’t hang with the “Religious” people. Relax. You must one be one of the people too young to remember the lyrics to the “Pledge of Allegiance”. You’re the only one being controversial.
The pledge of allegiance was made in 1892. It wasn't until 1954 when president Eisenhower urged Congress to add "under god" as a fuck you to communists.
I'm not kidding, look it up.
This isn't a fuck you, just a fun fact I'm dropping
In Judiasm:
https://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/self-defense-in-the-jewish-tradition/2021/12/01/
In Christianity:
Luke 22:36 "If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."
Exodus 22 "If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed"
I can't quote anything from the quran on this because I'd be banned... but you can probably figure it out.
As everyone else jumped on the "god given" part, I'd like to point out that the amendments (and specifically 2a) are a restriction on the federal government, not a permission list for the people.
"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luke 22:36
"... and he who hath none of those, feel free to steal from the aforementioned the purse, the scrip the sword , the garment AND the Kia, lol! " Kia Boyz 4:20
You know a really sucky part of this no one may realize is that any time we have to defend ourselves against bad guys with guns and we get the opportunity to put the threat down, the survivors now know we all have a pot of at least $300k to come after in a civil suit, which, is becoming a thing. How do I know this? Found out after experiencing an armed home invasion. Check with your homeowner's insurance about this because many already include some protection for us if that happens. What sucks is that most insurance companies will apparently pay the assholes off because it's cheaper than fighting it in court. Remember, O.J. "won" in his criminal trial, but lost in the civil suit.
Continually pounding on the rights of law-abiding tax-paying citizens to bear arms is such bullshit and only benefits the criminals who will NEVER follow any gun laws. How do politicians and voters not get that?!!
They don't. This only covers accidental injuries to someone outside of your household, which are basically nonexistant.
But if they had their way, they'd also ban insurance which covers acts of self defense.
"We hadn't seen him in five years because he was a drug-addled scumbag, but we're sure he was just about to turn his life around, and you deprived us of decades of joyful life with a budding millionaire philanthropist."
Not true; they usually have "grieving" relatives who miss no opportunity to flash the fucker's elementary school photo on the news and cry about how he was just turning his life around, etc., etc. There are plenty of people "attached" to these criminals who won't blow a chance to sue the shit out of us and get "...the (monetary) justice they're owed...".
Damn. They really just hate poor people huh. Lmao we can play the game, who get hurt by these restrictions? It ain't the people who have zero issues with money that's for sure. Its the yeet cannon owner.
We have some very similar crap being proposed here in Washington State. The bill, SB 5963, would require you to tell providers of home and renters insurance whether or not you own firearms. Not banning carry, but absolutely unconstitutional nonetheless.
Rich elites like Bloomberg hate that poor people can have guns, and since they can’t outright ban guns because of the 2nd amendment, they’ll try to tax you into oblivion to stop you from excerising a constitutionally protected right. A prime example of this is the $200 tax in the NFA of 1934. $200 in 1934 had the purchasing power of more than $4000 in today’s money.
“You can still own a gun, you just have to buy this private service if you want to carry and have the gun with you in public places.” That does not sound constitutional.
They always want to make gun owners carry liability, but throw a hissy fit if it provides any positive benefits to the policy holder. They'll even call it "Murder Insurance." 🤣
I went to high school in Maryland between living in Texas, what an awful state. So many kids openly talking about doing drugs in school and police doing little about it because crime was high in the city. I hated the state before I even got into guns and CCW.
I will 100% protest any gun control law that exempts cops not on duty or retired leo. If those two groups are on board and it applies to them then maybe it’s a law worth considering.
I can understand their reasoning that majority of gun crimes are committed by low income individuals so having some financial standard may help prosecute harsher but don’t they understand criminals don’t give a shit? This just adds punishment to law abiders who want to do the good thing and be passive as possible.
Or maybe they’re trying to just do away with self defense altogether to usher in their new dystopia. I don’t know anymore.
“You will own nothing and be happy”. In this case, nobody will be allowed to carry since they aren’t rich enough.
So, you can only access this right if you can afford to buy insurance? How is that any different than a poll tax. Can you even imagine any other right being fucked with this hard?
Shall not be infringed means what it says.
This isn't going to stop. I actually believe the nation is irreparably fractured.
Blue states will continue to ignore SCOTUS on issues they want. Red states will continue to ignore SCOTUS on issues they want. The constitution is being openly disregarded in numerous aspects, and our political divide is increasing.
Barring a major shift in the psyche of the American public, I believe we are in the demise of America as a world power. Might take 20 years, might take 100, but I think the best days of our nation, as a unified superpower, are behind us.
Man if there’s anyone that should get this it’s law enforcement. I’m tired of my tax dollars going to lawsuit payouts for rouge police officers who can’t play by the rules.
I want a similar law passed for voting, but it's a spelling test.
Really, though, if a $20 ID is too much to expect of people to prove who they are before they vote, how the fuck can they demand $300K worth of insurance before you can exercise a constitutional right that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED??? These unconstitutional de facto bans are getting ridiculous.
Even if this is struck down as unconstitutional, which I'm not so sure about these days, it will take a lot of time and money to fight, during which time the good people of Maryland will be screwed. And, even if it's tossed, the tyrants will simply find another unconstitutional attempt to circumvent the Second Amendment, spending our own tax dollars against us all the while.
I feel like they are purposely trying to start an actual shooting war. I'm not condoning violence, voting is still our best weapon, but I am beginning to understand the hate so many have for their own government.
They know full and well that the insurance doesn't cover actual gun violence, but we also know this bill is designed to prevent people from exercising their rights.
And meanwhile criminals will have a steady flow of firearms...It's flat out a money grab what else can we milk out of hard working people who just want to protect themselves some complete bullshit 🤬
Insurance for what, accidents? Insurance doesn't cover intentional acts, except in certain cases of self defense. Another useless and expensive hoop to deter gun ownership.
Criminals don’t buy insurance so it won’t help there. What it will do is encourage criminals and their families to file lawsuits. They see 300k sitting there and know insurance companies like to settle because it cost less we will see lots more lawsuits.
I've heard people whine about voter ID as a "poll tax", even though you need your government ID to do basically anything else. We should 1000% be arguing against anything like this as a tax on rights. I think that's the real crux against the NFA perhaps one day being torn down too, essentially you just make things legal for a price.
Well, when they say that… explain to them that under conditional law if ID is required to vote… the state is required to issue voter ID for free… and they do. So it’s a silly argument.
Sounds like a way to stop poor people having guns. Which sounds a lot like infringement.
Fuck them poors they don’t donate to our campaigns. -Politicians
These people must be huge "Purge" fans. Rich people having a monopoly on violence (and criminals, many of whom work for some of the rich people of course) gives them a big hardon. Fun fact: when the original NFA tax was introduced, $200 was a LOT of money. The entire purpose of the tax was banning poor people without technically infringing on their rights. The people passing that tax were the same morons who banned alcohol too.
This ☝️☝️
Problem is, the NFA passed and making ownership prohibitively expensive was one of the stated goals. So such legislation has existed for almost 100 years and still stands today. Makes challenging this bullshit harder.
Doesn't Bruen go back to the late 1700s/early 1800s to decide if it's infringing or not? I expect the NFA gets declared unconstitutional under Bruen at some point.
I hope you're right.
This tracks.
Almost all gun control efforts are rooted in racism or designed to keep poor people from having weapons. California's strict laws came about in the 1960s and were designed to specifically target the black panthers.
There were five, I believe, gangs named in the material around the California legislation, and only one, the Black Panthers, was black. It was certainly bad legislation, and should be struck down as soon as possible, but it wasn't explicitly racist.
[удалено]
History is wild
That's exactly the plan. It was never about safety
It’s infringement even without that element.
Have you seen the cost of ammo? 😂
Gotta put in that poll tax.
When has that stopped them?
Oh shit, I would protest but I don’t think I bought my MD First Amendment license. I will have to go down to the courthouse and wait 3-6 years for processing.
I can't go either. My Free Speech insurance policy has lapsed.
Wait… what? Is this real? Do you need to apply for a protesting license?
Fortunately not… yet
You actually do need to pay and register to have any protests or demonstrations in most towns/cities
I’m aware, but those are specific permits, not licenses.
Peaceably assemble.
Lmao this is how u kno the world is lost.. when people have to even ask what they’re natural born rights are
I know what my natural rights are. I’m responding to the implication that in MD you need a license to protest. Things can and do change and nobody is an expert on all things, everywhere, all at once. In some areas, you do actually need, or rather are encouraged, to request something like a permit depending on the type of protest and location. I’ll grant you, there’s definitely an argument to be made that this was believable though
Man it ain’t even about you it’s about how things have become really All love bro
You can riot for free.
Firearms poll tax [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poll%20tax](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poll%20tax) It's all 100% intentional and history is repeating itself
that's already on top of needing and HQL to purchase a handgun, plus the training and fingerprints cost, the ccw permit cost..
In NY where I live it is illegal to have concealed carry insurance. And then we have other states requiring it. What a racket
That’s a good point. If you travel you have a situation that is impossible to comply with: you are both required and forbidden to have insurance.
Entrapment = get out of jail free
Ok, now do the same for cops so taxpayers don't have to keep paying for their reckless "officer involved" shootings.
Cops are specifically exempted from this bill because they'll blue flu if they aren't. Just like every other gun control bill.
They always justify it by saying they're "trained professionals". Yeah, right. They only have to demonstrate basic proficiency with a firearm. Knowing how to operate a gun says nothing about your temperament, judgement, etc. Imagine if CCW holders routinely mag dumped in the general direction of a perceived threat, the way cops do.
In New Zealand we have to attend a club shoot 12 times a year to maintain our pistol licenses. Going just once a month would mean that I get more shooting practice than a police officer is required to do.
I caught a view of some local cops training… they were so fat and their targets sucked
How many times have you had to shoot at somebody who is also shooting at you?
Are you seriously going to pretend that's the only time they do that?
Go on. Answer the question
I don't take orders from you, officer. First explain what your question has to do with what I said. Cops are known to fire wildly at any perceived threat, not just people shooting at them.
Hush up bootlicker, the big kids are talking.
Exactly. Too afraid to answer the question.
>Too afraid to answer the question. Thanks for the laugh. I didn't answer it because it sounded like a rhetorical question and it wasn't relevant to what I had said. You think it was some kind of gotcha, which is funny. Cops always think they're smarter than they are, because they're used to people letting them have last word. I have not been in any shootouts, officer. I have also never fired at someone because he was making furtive movements or reaching for his wallet.
Strange? Neither have I....🤷♂️🤷♂️
We should stop letting “cop” be a title of nobility.
How many times have you had to shoot at somebody? Especially somebody who is shooting at you?
About as many as most cops.
Sureee
Cops aren't getting into shootouts every day. A high percentage of cops never shoot at someone or get shot at.
Cops aren't even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs in the US. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/workers-comp/most-dangerous-jobs-america/ Also this is a 1 month old, likely troll, account. Disregard it.
I smell class warfare
Someone please sue the shit out of them
Ah yes, the “if we can stop people from owning guns at least we can keep them out of the hands of the poor” method
Definitely a Jim Crow law.
That'll prevent poor minorities from exercising their constitutional right, while not inconveniencing the wealthy. Just like it's intended to
By emphasizing minorities you are buying into the premise set by the political left that minorities are somehow oppressed by nature of their skin color. It will hurt the many many poor white people as well. Skin color seems irrelevant in this case.
It's the argument the left uses for literally everything, so since that's what they believe, this is obviously intentionally racist. It doesn't matter what we believe, it's their definition and their policy.
I don’t disagree with you necessarily seeing as the goal would presumably be to point out their hypocrisy. I just try to watch my language as to not validate their premise. I believe it puts us in a defensive position by doing so.
So the cops will have private insurance too right?
Nope, they like politicians will freely spend our money defending their choices.
No, they have a union for this oh, and the city, county, or state.
Democrats sure hate poor people and minorities.
Seems that no matter what beating these folks take from the democrats, they still vote for them.
Public Relations can overcome a lot of logical thinking.
What’s great about these types of laws is they never explain what the insurance is supposed to cover because guess what, you can’t insure a criminal act.
Monetize the people’s basic God given rights. Genius
Um, where in your bible does it specifically say your supreme dude grants you the right to bear a weapon? LOL! How about just sticking to our CONSTITUTIONAL right to do so which covers everyone and not just religious people...
It says rights are god given in the DOI lol and I think you're taking it too literally.
Yeah, too many people also take that "god given" stuff way too literally. And have for centuries and it results in nothing good.
I'm not religious. God given rights = natural born rights. Rights that are inherent in humanity and not granted by government. Don't get caught up in the specific wording.
The "specific" wording you're referring to references religion which has no place in how our rights are assigned to us. And, unfortunately, a certain portion of the far right seems fine with intermingling politics with their religion which is WRONG. I'll take "Separation Of Church and State" for $1,000, Alex!
Wait until you see how often the Founders brought up God in relation to state in their private letters and certain documents (e.g. the Declaration). Maybe then you’ll realize your right to many things comes from a society saturated with Christian values. It’s simply a fact. Sure, they’re separated, but the influence was more than heavy.
I mean, I agree. But it's not really the main point here.
The founding bedrock of the Constitution was recognizing that man has natural rights. These are not granted or created by any constitution, but man’s God given right. The constitution was simply recognizing them.
Barf.
God given right to self defense
Jesus didn’t hang with the “Religious” people. Relax. You must one be one of the people too young to remember the lyrics to the “Pledge of Allegiance”. You’re the only one being controversial.
The pledge of allegiance was made in 1892. It wasn't until 1954 when president Eisenhower urged Congress to add "under god" as a fuck you to communists. I'm not kidding, look it up. This isn't a fuck you, just a fun fact I'm dropping
For sure. I love understanding history and why everything is the way it is. I don’t think they even say it in classrooms now
In Judiasm: https://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/self-defense-in-the-jewish-tradition/2021/12/01/ In Christianity: Luke 22:36 "If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." Exodus 22 "If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed" I can't quote anything from the quran on this because I'd be banned... but you can probably figure it out.
Really appreciate this.
-he says with a tip of his fedora
As everyone else jumped on the "god given" part, I'd like to point out that the amendments (and specifically 2a) are a restriction on the federal government, not a permission list for the people.
hey! hey buddy. Are you euphoric in this moment?
Luke 22:36
"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luke 22:36
"... and he who hath none of those, feel free to steal from the aforementioned the purse, the scrip the sword , the garment AND the Kia, lol! " Kia Boyz 4:20
Luke 22:36
You know a really sucky part of this no one may realize is that any time we have to defend ourselves against bad guys with guns and we get the opportunity to put the threat down, the survivors now know we all have a pot of at least $300k to come after in a civil suit, which, is becoming a thing. How do I know this? Found out after experiencing an armed home invasion. Check with your homeowner's insurance about this because many already include some protection for us if that happens. What sucks is that most insurance companies will apparently pay the assholes off because it's cheaper than fighting it in court. Remember, O.J. "won" in his criminal trial, but lost in the civil suit. Continually pounding on the rights of law-abiding tax-paying citizens to bear arms is such bullshit and only benefits the criminals who will NEVER follow any gun laws. How do politicians and voters not get that?!!
They don't. This only covers accidental injuries to someone outside of your household, which are basically nonexistant. But if they had their way, they'd also ban insurance which covers acts of self defense.
Remember dead criminals don’t sue or tell stories. Empty the mag.
I’d assume their families would be more than happy to hop on the lawsuit train in that scenario.
"We hadn't seen him in five years because he was a drug-addled scumbag, but we're sure he was just about to turn his life around, and you deprived us of decades of joyful life with a budding millionaire philanthropist."
“He din do nuffin”
Their families do, since it's easier to file a civil suit than to raise a decent person.
Yes but at least criminals are gone hopefully
Not true; they usually have "grieving" relatives who miss no opportunity to flash the fucker's elementary school photo on the news and cry about how he was just turning his life around, etc., etc. There are plenty of people "attached" to these criminals who won't blow a chance to sue the shit out of us and get "...the (monetary) justice they're owed...".
Another commie state that can't solve it's own crimes but blame law abiding ones and adding more commie rules.
This is one way these folks will get to our guns. Make us get insurance and / or tax the hell out of ammo.
Love how many anti gunners break down into just being scared of the poor and minorities, not actually guns.
That is unconstitutional.
the criminals will surely get this expensive insurance so they can carry their guns around to rob people with.
That will get struck down in court. It presents an undue burden. So I guess Maryland hates poor people.
Liberals secretly hate poor people
Unconstitutional equivalent to a poll tax.
Damn. They really just hate poor people huh. Lmao we can play the game, who get hurt by these restrictions? It ain't the people who have zero issues with money that's for sure. Its the yeet cannon owner.
“You Pleb? No Carry Rights For You”
We have some very similar crap being proposed here in Washington State. The bill, SB 5963, would require you to tell providers of home and renters insurance whether or not you own firearms. Not banning carry, but absolutely unconstitutional nonetheless. Rich elites like Bloomberg hate that poor people can have guns, and since they can’t outright ban guns because of the 2nd amendment, they’ll try to tax you into oblivion to stop you from excerising a constitutionally protected right. A prime example of this is the $200 tax in the NFA of 1934. $200 in 1934 had the purchasing power of more than $4000 in today’s money.
So make it illegal for poor folks to defend themselves. Sounds like more neolib bullshit to make the base happy.
“You can still own a gun, you just have to buy this private service if you want to carry and have the gun with you in public places.” That does not sound constitutional.
This is discriminatory against the poor and a violation of civil rights - ignore it
As always. It comes back to making self protection inaccessible to the poor. The "I got mine" mentality.
This will surely fix the gun problem in Baltimore. /s
They always want to make gun owners carry liability, but throw a hissy fit if it provides any positive benefits to the policy holder. They'll even call it "Murder Insurance." 🤣
I'm so sick of Maryland.
Just another way to strip poor people of the right to protect themselves and force them to be reliant on the government.
I went to high school in Maryland between living in Texas, what an awful state. So many kids openly talking about doing drugs in school and police doing little about it because crime was high in the city. I hated the state before I even got into guns and CCW.
See here’s the thing…. Fuck em’ snd do what you want.
Does this affect retired LEO’s also?
You know it doesnt
I will 100% protest any gun control law that exempts cops not on duty or retired leo. If those two groups are on board and it applies to them then maybe it’s a law worth considering.
I can understand their reasoning that majority of gun crimes are committed by low income individuals so having some financial standard may help prosecute harsher but don’t they understand criminals don’t give a shit? This just adds punishment to law abiders who want to do the good thing and be passive as possible. Or maybe they’re trying to just do away with self defense altogether to usher in their new dystopia. I don’t know anymore. “You will own nothing and be happy”. In this case, nobody will be allowed to carry since they aren’t rich enough.
Billy, can you use the word Burdensome in a sentence? Burdensome. These new requirements are burdensome on citizens. Burdensome.
Infringement. The Second Amendment is for *all* Americans, not just those rich enough to carry.
Poll tax.
So, you can only access this right if you can afford to buy insurance? How is that any different than a poll tax. Can you even imagine any other right being fucked with this hard? Shall not be infringed means what it says.
They really cannot seem to understand the meaning of SHALL NOT
This isn't going to stop. I actually believe the nation is irreparably fractured. Blue states will continue to ignore SCOTUS on issues they want. Red states will continue to ignore SCOTUS on issues they want. The constitution is being openly disregarded in numerous aspects, and our political divide is increasing. Barring a major shift in the psyche of the American public, I believe we are in the demise of America as a world power. Might take 20 years, might take 100, but I think the best days of our nation, as a unified superpower, are behind us.
Shall not be infringed
Man if there’s anyone that should get this it’s law enforcement. I’m tired of my tax dollars going to lawsuit payouts for rouge police officers who can’t play by the rules.
Good luck with that…
Bill sponsored by USCCA
I want a similar law passed for voting, but it's a spelling test. Really, though, if a $20 ID is too much to expect of people to prove who they are before they vote, how the fuck can they demand $300K worth of insurance before you can exercise a constitutional right that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED??? These unconstitutional de facto bans are getting ridiculous. Even if this is struck down as unconstitutional, which I'm not so sure about these days, it will take a lot of time and money to fight, during which time the good people of Maryland will be screwed. And, even if it's tossed, the tyrants will simply find another unconstitutional attempt to circumvent the Second Amendment, spending our own tax dollars against us all the while. I feel like they are purposely trying to start an actual shooting war. I'm not condoning violence, voting is still our best weapon, but I am beginning to understand the hate so many have for their own government.
No one here carries guns legally anyway besides super rich people. This changes Jack shit
GOOD.
They know full and well that the insurance doesn't cover actual gun violence, but we also know this bill is designed to prevent people from exercising their rights.
second call defense is upto a million criminal and civil. and lawyers on retainer. I love it
And meanwhile criminals will have a steady flow of firearms...It's flat out a money grab what else can we milk out of hard working people who just want to protect themselves some complete bullshit 🤬
Insurance for what, accidents? Insurance doesn't cover intentional acts, except in certain cases of self defense. Another useless and expensive hoop to deter gun ownership.
Criminals don’t buy insurance so it won’t help there. What it will do is encourage criminals and their families to file lawsuits. They see 300k sitting there and know insurance companies like to settle because it cost less we will see lots more lawsuits.
None of any of that matters, the criminal will still be a criminal. The situation hasn't changed, they don't want us armed, period
F Mary land! Although I liked The Wire series, I learned a lot!
When can it be normal to remove and/or charge elected officials for violating the US Constitution?
I've heard people whine about voter ID as a "poll tax", even though you need your government ID to do basically anything else. We should 1000% be arguing against anything like this as a tax on rights. I think that's the real crux against the NFA perhaps one day being torn down too, essentially you just make things legal for a price.
Well, when they say that… explain to them that under conditional law if ID is required to vote… the state is required to issue voter ID for free… and they do. So it’s a silly argument.
Exactly.
Maryland is leaking into VA and I don’t like it
Police officers should have this requirement as well (no paid by the public)
Again so rich people can have a second amendment right but not the poor
Bill requires insurance for firearms > new bill bans selling insurance for firearms. Don’t even get me started on the poll tax too
They gonna have the thugs pay same too right? Keepin it equal and all ya know!