Legislation in Maryland Would Place Prohibitive Insurance Requirement for Firearms 'Wear or Carry'

It is belaboring the obvious to note that a constitutional right should not be conditional and subject to taxation, but a Maryland politician is proposing exactly that. Predictably, anti-Second Amendment Maryland Delegate Terri Hill is proposing to require prospective legal CCW holders to provide proof of a $300k insurance policy before being allowed to carry.

Gun owners in Maryland would be required to buy at least $300,000 in liability insurance or forfeit their ability to carry a firearm under a new bill.
The controversial legislation, introduced by Delegate Terri Hill, D-Howard County, would prohibit the "wear or carry" of a gun anywhere in the state unless the individual has obtained a liability insurance policy of at least $300,000.
"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 interest and costs," the proposed Maryland legislation said.

This is a blatant attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court's Bruen decision, which essentially requires all fifty states to implement a shall-issue concealed-carry system, establishing that the Second Amendment means what it says by "keep and bear arms." Ever since that decision, anti-gun politicians have tried every trick in the book to circumvent the requirements that Bruen and the Second Amendment place on the states.

Criminals, of course, will not be obtaining insurance, any more than they will be applying for concealed-carry permits. Concealed-carry (CCW) permit holders are more law-abiding than not only criminals (obviously) but than the population in general; CCW holders are not and never have been the problem, but that matters not to anti-gun politicians like Delegate Terri Hill; it's not the facts that matter, but the virtue-signal.

Delegate Hill isn't alone. Leftist politicians have been trying every angle they can come up with to sidestep Bruen and the Second Amendment.

What's particularly egregious about this attempt, though, is that it places an undue burden on the people who may be most often in a position where self-defense is necessary: The poor. But Hill once more launched the anti-gun left's favorite attempt at rhetoric, referring to this as a "common sense" measure.

Hill told FOX 45 News that this bill is an attempt to pass "common sense" gun control.
She told the local outlet that the idea came after talking to a concerned constituent who said that gun owners should "bear some liability in cases where there is damage because of guns being used in ways that cause harm."

It wouldn't be unreasonable to bet that the above conversation between Hill and an unnamed constituent never happened.

As to the substance of that questionable conversation, it's nonsense: Anyone carrying a firearm, legally or not, already faces liability if they use their firearm in an illegal, reckless, or negligent manner; this proposal does nothing to change that.

My father used to say, "The thing about common sense is that it isn't common." Terri Hill has illustrated that very plainly; her proposed legislation rewards criminals by disarming the law-abiding, hits hardest those who are most likely to benefit from armed self-defense, and attempts to work around a Supreme Court precedent. In deep-blue Maryland, it's hard to tell what will happen, but this bill is anything but "common sense," and needs to die an early and unlamented death in the Maryland legislature.