Previous Post
Next Post

As if Maryland didn’t already suck enough as a place to live if you’re a gun owner, it looks like Delegate Terri Hill (you guessed it, a Democrat, from of all places, crime-riddled Howard County) wants to make it even worse for her constituents who only want to protect themselves. According to Fox News, Hill has proposed a bill that would require gun owners who wish to secure a concealed carry permit, to also buy at least $300,000 in liability insurance in order to do so.

The report lays out the following:

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.

Law enforcement and military would be exempt, as would anyone transporting an unloaded firearm.

Hill, used the favorite Democratic Party, anti-gunner buzzwords “common sense” to mask the lack of understanding she has for her own proposal when she told Fox 45 News in an interview the bill was “an attempt to pass ‘common sense’ gun control.”

More from Fox:

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.”

Hill demonstrates her ignorance of what she is actually proposing since the “gun owners” who create “damage” and use guns “in ways that cause harm” are most often criminals, who rob, attack and shoot people. These are already crimes, many times perpetrated by people who already aren’t legally allowed to carry firearms or are illegally doing so, so it is doubtful they will also go out and buy insurance policies to cover their crimes.

As for concerns of negligent or accidental discharges, there is no evidence there is a wave of those that would constitute a need for such a law nor did the Fox News article address that. But hey, TTAG will look into it.

Frank Duffy, identified as a gun advocate in the Fox News article echoed what most gun owners already know, “the legislation is yet another effort to hinder individuals from carrying their firearms.” Which will only make Marylanders less safe, not more so.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Huh. Not a bad idea, really. That way, all the gang bangers and assorted criminals will be able to make restitution to their victims. I like the idea. Huh? What’s that you say? You don’t think criminals will bother getting insurance? Oh. Well. Imagine that. Do you really think criminals will break this law too?

    • There has never been anything good about Gun Control and there never will be. That said the only honorable thing to do is formally abolish Gun Control like its sidekick Slavery was abolished. Failure to do so and continue to play games with Gun Control is as insane as ignoring the third reich rounding up and exterminating Defenseless Jews and Defenseless others deemed as misfits. Gun Control? The writing is on the wall…

      • another non- response to hog top tier space containing ad nauseum repetition with a matching inspirational video posted a hundred times previous that no one watches.
        go rub some creme- rinse into your merkin.

    • Worse. The insurance won’t (maybe can’t) cover criminal activities. The insurance requirement is like most gun control. Only a barrier to keep honest people from owning guns, especially the poor ones.

      • But it will cover negligent discharges, like range or hunting accidents, children getting a hold of loaded weapons and causing injury and the like. If you have homeowner’s insurance, such claims are already covered. But you are right; if you intend to shoot someone this insurance probably will not cover the incident, unless you are shooting someone who broke into your house and the perp sues. It does not cover criminal actions brought against you, although self defense insurance may (policies vary quite a bit).

        In short, if you have homeowner’s or renter’s liability insurance, you are probably already insured for negligently inflicted harms. Discuss with your agent. But since these idiots have no clue how insurance works, they pass these laws requiring coverage not realizing that they add nothing to the equation. San Jose, California has done so, and perhaps also Seattle.

    • Look for selective application of the law. Certain demographics are likely to be de jure exempt.

      Is insurance that meets the requirements actually available or is that another “feature” of the law?

    • The state will create a fund, by special tax on every gun and ammo purchase, that will provide free coverage for uninsured POCs. Problem solved.

      • “The state will create a fund, by special tax on every gun and ammo purchase,…”

        That’s what is called a ‘poll tax’, and is expressly unconstitutional when applied on a bona-fide enumerated civil right like the 2A…

  2. Intentional criminal acts are not covered by insurers. Just like suicide won’t get your life insurance payout.

    The point is just another gate to keep people from their rights. Nothing whatsoever to do with compensating victims.

    • two year moratorium clause on ceiling painting.
      “ha, you can’ta fool me- there ain’t no sanity clause!”

    • > Nothing whatsoever to do with compensating victims.

      Depends on who you define as “victim.”

      Assuming that the insurance carrier would actually pay out on any claim**, there is a visible $300,000 minimum available for any lawyer who want to take up the case for a “victim.”

      Just because a cash award has been ordered by a court, doesn’t mean it will / can be paid. The court hands out a piece of paper with an order. It doesn’t collect for you. Knowing that you have $300k available is an incentive for a suit.

      Any lawyers in here? Please school me if I am wrong.

      ** look at your homeowners insurance under EXCLUSIONS.

        • DinWA,

          One of my law school professors refined it down to its essence: “Insurance companies are in the business of selling coverage, and denying liability.” He followed that up by describing a case he, personally, had litigated, where an insurance company had denied liability based on the wording of the policy. He brought in, as an expert witness, a renowned grammarian and symbolic logician, who deconstructed the clause in question and proved that it didn’t say a damned thing except “we aren’t liable”. Then he stopped, looked at all of us eager law students, and said, “and damn near every seat in the courtroom was filled with lawyers and insurance executives, taking notes so they wouldn’t make that mistake again!”.

          Insurance is a scam to take money away from gullible consumers to enrich insurance companies and lawyers (hmm, kinda like the government, when you get right down to it, innit??).

        • I could jump bad like you did to me on Friday’s “New Anti-Gun Group Hopes Foreign Lawsuits” thread, Lamp — but I won’t.

          “Insurance companies are in the business of selling coverage, and denying liability.”

          That’s a lie. Your law professor doesn’t know insurance from a hole in the ground. I hope that he wasn’t teaching Contract Law.

          “He followed that up by describing a case he, personally, had litigated …”

          What’s the word for that? Ah, anecdotal — that’s it.
          I wonder how the insurance commission in that state let the policy slide with that wording? They’re the ones that have to pre-approve the wording of all insurance contracts sold in the state.

          “Insurance is a scam to take money away from gullible consumers to enrich insurance companies and lawyers”


          You have the option to self-insure — even in states that have mandatory liability insurance.

        • “You have the option to self-insure — even in states that have mandatory liability insurance.”

          Not according to the unconstitutional (un) Affordable Care Act, if I’m not mistaken…

        • So, we all know, now, what business alien is in. I’m a lawyer, but I regularly make fun of lawyers (for good reason), so it amuses me that (for example) insurance salesmen can’t make or abide jokes about insurance salesmen.

          In response to your other drivel:

          1. NO, in many instances, and many states, you CANNOT ‘self-insure’ (try that nonsense in most states with respect to car insurance, and see how that works out);

          2. So, if I understand your point correctly, about the language of insurance policies (not actually true, by the way), I’m protected from scams by insurance companies/salesmen because . . . some bureaucrat (obviously, he/she MUST be an “expert”) says so??? Ever heard of the phenomenon of “industry capture” in regard to bureaucrats and regulation? Get a grip, Chief;

          3. Of course it was “anecdotal” – and probably every poster on this site has experienced, or has friends or family who experienced, something similar. To deny the truism that insurance companies are in the business of selling coverage and denying liability requires either cynical self-interest, or a level of reality-avoidance worth of MajorLiar or dacian the demented.

          But you are welcome to continue to harbor your self-interest, or delusions (but embrace the healing power of “and”!). Sorry, not sorry. And not wrong, either, but you do you.

        • Jeesh, Lamp, you’ve become somewhat of an asshole lately.

          I was an insurance adjuster for 32 years, so yes, I know something of the industry. I didn’t read anything in your post that was intended as a “joke” so your contention is a non sequitur.

          1) Yes, you can self-insure. Fl is a good example as we have “mandatory” auto insurance. There’s a provision in the law for self-insurance by posting a surety bond with the dept. If you would bother to dig into your state’s law, you’d find the same.

          2) You didn’t, or chose not to, understand my point. No need to explain it again.

          3) What you stated is not a “truism.” Insurance companies would be driven out of business if they made a business practice of denying claims or acting in “bad faith.” It’s easy to look up the penalties in your state for an insurer who is found guilty of bad faith — “treble damages” might ring a bell. And I saw FL drum out one company for doing such.

          You’re better than this. If not, then there’s no use in discussing with you, just as there’s no use in discussing with dishonest lying posters such as Liar69er or demented dacien. You want to be counted among their number?

        • alien,

          Wow, when you go down the rabbit hole, you REALLY go down, doncha??

          1. Quote me the exact language in my comment to you in which I claimed, or said, my comment was a “joke”? It wasn’t; I meant every word.

          2. Again, grow the eff up. I don’t care what your “professional credentials” are – my point was, and remains, that you are part of the industry, so OF COURSE you deny the obvious. We had a state bar president, when I was a young lawyer, who SERIOUSLY contended, in public, that “lawyer jokes” should be considered hate crimes, so I guess there are self-important idiots in every profession, eh??

          3. Never said I wasn’t an @$$hole, but I at least make an effort at self-awareness. Do you own a mirror?? You are being a contentious @$$hole, yourself, spouting crap that is demonstrably untrue (ability to ‘self-insure’, for example.
          And even where it IS allowed (which it is NOT in many state, and for many kinds of insurance), the requirements are intentionally uneconomical (at the behest of the insurance industry). And then you get all pompous about it based on your “professional expertise”. And it JUST. AIN’T. TRUE. (which I notice you didn’t bother to try to refute . . . because you’re wrong, and you know it. How do you go about ‘self-insuring’ yourself and your car in most states, eh??).

          Again, sorry, not sorry. Don’t start none; won’t be none.

      • There is an incentive, but some states provide that a person convicted of a felony in a shooting incident is barred from suit. If the “victim” is the aggressor, liability goes out the window. Also, if there is a big issue as to whether the defendant acted intentionally, the plaintiff’s attorney might have to fight a declaratory relief action as to the availability of coverage, which is a disincentive in many cases.

        So it isn’t just a bed of roses because of a large policy limit. Litigation is expensive, and the plaintiff’s attorney has to eat those litigation costs as the case progresses–and if he/she does not collect, the attorney is SOL.

    • Shire-man, “Just like suicide won’t get your life insurance payout.”
      Not necessarily correct. Most life insurance policies have a clause stating that if suicide occurs within the first 2-3 years of the date the policy was issued that it will not pay the full benefit. However after the 2 to 3 year period the policy will pay for any cause of death including suicide. One exception is Fraud. Any attempt at fraud may nullify payments. Even some group life insurance policies pay for any cause including suicide. Best to read all the small/large print on a policy especially Exclusions.

      • Hush, you’re right. But that doesn’t stop people from explaining what they think insurance should cover rather than reading the policy to find out what it does cover.

        And I doubt that you’ll find any “fine print” in modern policies. In FL, there are regulations stating the exact size of the typeface that is required, and the policies are called “readable” policies.

        But that didn’t stop customers from explaining to me what was covered, during my 32 years as an adjuster.

        • alien, I stated fine/small print meaning it is important to read every word in an insurance policy. I sold life and hospitalization(the old daily rate) policies for a major company back in the early 70 just after college. I am sure many things have changed since then.

        • @ alien, my initial response is in moderation prison,so I’ll try again.
          My intent in saying, “Best to read all the small/large print” was an attempt to encourage policy holders to read everything in policy. It has been 50 years since I sold life insurance and certainly many things have changed.

  3. Nothing new. I’m surprised they don’t required tethers, or tiny popout parachutes, on the projectiles to limit it’s range to some arbitrary number of feet. 😉

    • Better yet, how about teachers being forced to carry liability insurance, and be forced to pay when little Jane and Johnny cannot read and write after 12 years of indoctrination we call “schooling”? I mean, why stop with law abiding gun owners (insert sarcasm).

      • Along the same lines, we should require liability insurance before anyone can exercise their First Amendment right to free speech since they may libel or slander someone.

        • At the rate this country is sliding, one will need a permit to breathe, too. I surmise we should not give them any ideas, since we humans exhale that “nasty”, CO2 they keep telling us is a harmful gas. But yes, God forbid we offend someone with words….poor snow flakes might never recover without someone paying them an insurance settlement.

    • PRC border is not open to furniners. OR to Chinese citizens who might want to LEAVE China. So, how/why have thousands of military age males from chicomland been arriving in Mexico and then illegally crossing/invading OUR border into the US??? What % does ICE never even SEE crossing?

      • neiowa,

        I don’t mean to devalue your comment–I have three serious related questions assuming that it is true that China does not allow their young men to hop onto a flight to Mexico from a Chinese airport:

        Will China allow their young males to leave the country for border nations, especially communist border nations such as Vietnam (after which they could travel to Mexico)?

        Along the same lines, is it fairly easy for young males to walk across the Chinese border in some remote location into a friendlier nation and travel from there to Mexico?

        Or will China allow their young males to depart for an “ally” (perhaps some place in Africa?) for work in Chinese operations in that allied nation–only to then skip town and head to Mexico from there?

        Of course my questions fail to consider whether or not average Chinese males can get Chinese passports which they would need to board commercial aircraft in any major airport in any nation before arriving in Mexico. And my questions also assume that these young Chinese males have some form of money that they can use in their travels–which is anything but guaranteed as far as I can surmise.

    • They want you to hold liability insurance to pay someone else, I am betting they’d be fine banning legal insurance so you can defend yourself in court without going broke fighting one of their leftist prosecutor buddies.

    • “You mean like CCWsafe? I already have that, and doesn’t the left call that murder insurance?”

      Thinking the intent is to have liability insurers refuse to include incidents related to gunfire under their policies as an identified illegal act, which they do not insure against. No insurance available, no “carry”, or maybe even use.

      • Sam,

        Once again, sir, you are correct. NO insurance policy covers for illegal or intentional malfeasance. And the scam they are promoting is exactly that – “We can’t ban guns, but we’ll require insurance that is literally not available (and never will be)”. It’s just another version of the “sue the manufacturer is some nutball uses a gun improperly, even though the gun functioned perfectly”.

        Logic doesn’t enter into the argument, when dealing with anti-gunners (or Leftist/fascists, generally).

        • “Logic doesn’t enter into the argument, when dealing with anti-gunners (or Leftist/fascists, generally).”

          Well,….if one can shift the frame of reference, everything becomes totally logical (I suspect this is what happens to people who commit suicide).

          An example is that in our digital world, the base 10 number 74 = 112 in octal (base 8). Adding base 8 numbers uses the same numeric symbols of base 10 numbers, and without knowing about octal calculations, the math looks like utter nonsense. But shift you frame of reference to base 8, and everything is completely logical.

        • Sam,

          Granted, but . . . some frames of reference are more useful than others. There are arenas in which base 8, or binary, or base 12 calculations are useful. In what universe is the Leftist/fascist worldview useful for ANYTHING (except permitting morons to self-identify (c.f., MajorLiar and dacian the demented))??

  4. yeah…no.
    People need to actively reconsider the historical usage of tar,feathers;or more permanent options for the Care And Reorientation Of Public Servants Exhibiting Progressitard Psychosis and Elitist Overlord/Lady Syndrome

  5. You can’t buy insurance for criminal acts. A lot of the rest is covered by homeowners insurance. Making a specific policy like this I would imagine the risk is so absurdly low it wouldn’t even be worth the time of the insurance companies.

      • Nikita,

        Both commercial and personal general liability insurance is readily available (not saying it’s cheap; it ain’t – but it’s available). Now, the requirements in most of the mandatory carry insurance laws I’ve seen aren’t possible, but general liability insurance is. Just sayin’.

  6. Infringing on the 2A should be a capital offense. The next time we write a Bill of Rights and a Constitution we need to put that in there.

  7. How about a bill to require Maryland politicians to carry a $100 million dollar liability policy to cover the damage they do to the citizens with their every day stupidity and ignorance?

    • Was going to say this EXACTLY.

      Or heck, what about voters? Maybe you shouldn’t be allowed to vote without insurance. We could even collect it at the polls. You know, a poll tax.

      • That along with an aptitude test to show that you’re not completely ignorant about who or what you’re voting for.

        • In a recent poll 18% of registered voters said they would vote for whoever Taylor Swift told them to, 17% said they would vote the opposite, and 55% said it wouldn’t matter what Taylor Swift had to say. The 1st 2 offset pretty well, but realistically, only the 55% should be allowed to vote. So, I agree, an aptitude test is in order!

    • Because of the high probability of payout, the premiums are going to be expensive.

      dacian, here’s a lesson in how insurance works in the real world.

      • Southern,

        AYFKMRN??? dacian hasn’t visited the real world since he was born. He lives in a world where the communist utopia is the ultimate goal . . . despite the fact that it has never worked, anywhere*.

        *I had to footnote that, because the Oneida Colony, in the US, was actually quite successful for about 40 years . . . until the next generation came along. Other than that, there has literally NEVER been a successful communist government, anywhere. dacian the demented and MajorLiar refuse to accept that basic truth, but . . . who pays attention to those morons, anyway??

        • dacian hasn’t left mom’s basement since at least COVID started, with the exception of the antifa barrack’s banjo recital night.

        • No, Southern, don’t overlook his regular afternoon circle jerk with MajorLiar! (Or does MajorLiar live in dacian’s mom’s basement – or vice versa???)

  8. I cringe at the “bear some responsibility” statement. That means the State is going to ruin your life in defending your life.

    • It’s all the rage these days, donchya know, expecting other people to bear responsibility for one’s choices. Take out a school loan did you? Other people should pay for it. Run your business into the ground, did you? Other people should bail you out. Commit a crime, did you? Other people should pay your victims. Bit of a pattern, that.

  9. The State breaking constitutional law is nothing new, unfortunately. It’s done all the time.

    But when a state like Texas fights against the federal government. Now you have something that’s very different.

    I don’t expect a leader to be perfect.
    But I do expect them to be fair, accurate, and truthful.
    And those are the reasons why Elon is hated so much.

    “Elon Musk goes live the texas border”
    video 14 min long

  10. There shouldn’t be a Law Enforcement “exemption”, every officer should be required as a condition of employment to carry liability insurance.

    • No need. He is entitled in most circumstances to indemnity from his employer for any act “within the course and scope of his/her employment”, and the employers are typically insured for this. The only circumstances in which the officer would not be covered is if he committed an intentional criminal act. for example, the California Supreme Court held that sexual harassment/ rape does not fall within the scope of an officer’s employment, and therefore the officer was not entitled to indemnity (coverage) from his employer.

  11. Hill knows this bill won’t last under Bruen… historical precedence, but it will require pro-2A resources be expended to challenge, get it over turned. Merely legal warfare. Pro-2A will fund both sides of this fight via donations pro and taxes against. They suffer no repercussions, personal risk to Libturd politicians for this bullshit. and, in effect, citizens acquiesce to this tyranny. Same bullshit King Georgie’s boys did until patriots started shooting them. History….learn from it; be doomed to re-live it; or die from it. Vets have been kitting up on the wrong soil.

  12. The only recognizable insurance will be the companies giving money to the Maryland politicians.

  13. “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.””

    I thought those lefties had a problem with “collective punishment” these days. Guess not.

    I’m getting old, I guess. I just can’t seem to keep up with the ‘current thing’.

    Come to think of it, I carry uninsured motorist coverage because, even though there is a law requiring other drivers to have auto liability insurance, not all of them do. Maybe she could recommend that all of the people of Maryland be required to carry “uninsured shooter insurance” so as to not unequally burden the ones carrying. Bet that would be an easy sell.

  14. The Ravens played a dirty game and still lost.
    *How Bout Them Chiefs*
    Gunm insurance, it’s a thing.
    License Registration and proof of Insurance please.
    No, the Second Amendment is a privilege not a Right and the State can revoke that privilege if you do not abide by the States law.
    “Oh what a world, what a world.” pphtzzzzzzz

  15. ONE constituent suggested this?? These dims couldn’t have an original thought if their life (and our Republic) depended on it. God please help us.

  16. @Lamp
    “In what universe is the Leftist/fascist worldview useful for ANYTHING (except permitting morons to self-identify (c.f., MajorLiar and dacian the demented))??”

    In the Leftist/fascist universe.

    OTH, I was addressing how a shift in perspective can make bizarre logic not bizarre, but entirely understandable….logical. Read through the Leftist/fascist mindset, everything they do is logical, common sense.

    • Sam,

      Oh, I FREELY admit that the Leftist/fascists have an agenda, a purpose, and a set of goals, that they pursue with tenacity. And, no, I don’t expect that everyone will ‘get that’, and apply logic, instead.

      There are actual “logical” cases to be made that would justify slavery, or the Holocaust, or even the British Raj, but . . . none of that works in the real world.

      As one of my philosophy professors used to say, “You can prove anything with ‘logic’ – assuming you are willing to distort the meaning of ‘logic’ beyond recognition.” I am sure the MajorLiar has an internal ‘logic’ that makes sense to him (dacian the demented, not so much), but . . . that ‘logic’ is laughably stupid and illogical.

      Just because some moron can pull a ‘logical framework’ out of their @$$hole doesn’t mean that that ‘logical framework’ is deserving of anything but derision. The most obvious example I can think of is the Leftist/fascists recent fascination with trying to differentiate “my truth” from “THE truth”. How deluded do you have to be?? (And, yes, I agree that many of our fellow commenters (and many American voters) are that deluded. Doesn’t make them ‘right’ or logical.)

      • “Just because some moron can pull a ‘logical framework’ out of their @$$hole doesn’t mean that that ‘logical framework’ is deserving of anything but derision.”

        Until “their” logic is the only logic permissible.

        In the late Soviet Union, communism was the only logical rationale. If one disagreed with the state, one is avoiding, or defying the perfect state, which is the very essence of mental illness, requiring assignment to an asylum.

    • “This is currently the *must read* article on why such proposals won’t solve anything:”

      Interesting link; thanx.

      One purpose of the insurance requirement is to make coverage so broad/unlimited that no insurance company would offer it, thus, the real target of the plan is non-criminals. And since law doesn’t really deter, punishment for use without insurance is the goal, with second order effect being reduction in legal use.

    • They’re not meant to “solve anything.” They’re meant to inflict as much pain and cost as possible on the exercise of the right.

    • Better read the fine print. A certain company denied coverage to a guy in VA in a self-defense shooting. The guy was charged and acquitted but he had to pay for his attorney.

  17. The gun is the insurance. Who needs protection, the criminal ?
    Insurance is not needed for the property or injuries or deaths of innocent bystanders, criminal negligence laws already exist. So if I get insurance I can spray a crowd to stop one perp.

Comments are closed.