Forget gun-grabbing — with the bill state Democrats recently introduced, Maryland residents might not be able to afford guns for the government to grab. And that’s the whole point.
If passed, House Bill 430 would require gun carriers to have liability insurance of at least $300,000. Carriers who don’t comply would be guilty of a misdemeanor and “lose the right” to own a firearm, according to the bill.
Democratic Del. Terri Hill introduced HB 430 on Jan. 18, calling it “another effort at common sense gun legislation,” WBFF-TV reported. It was co-sponsored by more than a dozen other Democratic state delegates.
“A person may not wear or carry a firearm unless the person has obtained and is covered by liability insurance … 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 legislation reads.
The bill does list some exemptions: members of the armed forces, federal law enforcement, carriers of U.S. Coast Guard-approved flare guns, and citizens carrying unloaded firearms.
After the first reading, HB 430 was referred to committee and has at least seven more stops within the House before reaching Democratic Gov. Wes Moore’s desk.
The proposed effective date is Oct. 1.
Criticism of HB 430
Lawmakers and Second Amendment advocates have voiced strong opposition to the legislation.
“This bill places an unconstitutional burden on citizens to own a firearm,” Republican Del. Ryan Nawrocki said.
“The Constitution doesn’t say that poor people can’t own a firearm because they can’t afford that insurance,” Nawrocki said in a separate instance, according to WBFF.
One Atlanta-based law enforcement expert also criticized the bill, describing it as “absolutely ineffective.”
“Whoever thought of this idea doesn’t understand the criminal element on the street. These guys don’t do it the right way,” said Joseph Ested, a former police officer.
“The guys on the street don’t buy guns the legal way; they do it [illegally]. So we need to target them, not have the citizens — law-abiding citizens — hurting to try to buy a gun,” Ested said.
There was no shortage of pushback against the bill on social media, either, with users pointing out a number of problems with it.
Is HB 430 unconstitutional?
For example, X users compared the insurance requirement to a poll tax, which Democrat-led Southern states levied to prevent blacks from voting after the Civil War. Anyone else who couldn’t afford the tax was also unable to vote.
Why does Maryland hate poor people?
What’s next, a poll tax bill? https://t.co/yfdFH5QZDa
— Bonnie Blue (@BonnieBlueTK) January 26, 2024
Maryland HB 430 – Firearms – Liability Insurance – Public Wearing and Carrying
$300k insurance requirement. THIS IS A POLL TAX.https://t.co/jro5xWKz6V
— GhostlyRiderBeo-II #BeWater (@billcraft16) January 27, 2024
Another X user cited the Supreme Court case Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943), in which SCOTUS struck down an ordinance that required Jehovah’s Witnesses to buy a license to sell religious material door-to-door.
The court ruled that “a state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.”
Disgusting, classist, racist, and unconstitutional. #2A pic.twitter.com/hh2WxSU51n
— Steve Easterling (@grim_prime) January 27, 2024
A major concern is that HB 430 could render firearms unaffordable for Maryland residents.
For reference, one firearm liability insurance company, Lockton Affinity Outdoor, has a basic rate of $75 a year for $250,000 of coverage. Its next tier is $125 a year for $500,000 of coverage.
But it isn’t just about the price.
Whether the cost is $500 a year or $5 a year is irrelevant, according to the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. The right to bear arms is “unalienable”; it cannot be taken away or infringed by legislation.
The Noose Around the Second Amendment Is Tightening
HB 430 is just one of the roundabout ways Democrats are trying to disarm Americans.
Such schemes seem to have grown increasingly aggressive (and successful) since the 2022 SCOTUS case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, in which the court ruled that a New York law restricting citizens’ right to carry was unconstitutional.
Since then, Democrats have tenaciously cracked down on the Second Amendment by attacking gun owners’ wallets.
For example, in September, California passed an 11 percent tax on all firearm and ammo transactions.
In August, House Democrats introduced House Resolution 5135, which proposes a 1,000 percent excise tax on on “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines. The bill hasn’t moved since it was introduced.
In 2022, New Jersey passed a law allowing the state government to go after gun dealers in civil court. The state wasted no time exploiting the anti-gun law: In December, it sued three dealers.
One of the lawsuits claims a gun store illegally displayed firearms so they could be seen from outside; New Jersey sued the store after it was burglarized. The other two lawsuits accuse dealers of selling “ghost guns.”
“We’re going to hold these folks accountable, but they won’t be the last,” state Attorney General Matt Platkin warned.
The Biden administration shows no signs of slowing down on gun control, either.
President Joe Biden appointed Vice President Kamala Harris to head the new White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention in September.
Harris vowed in a statement that anti-gun executive and legislative action would not stop.
“Our promise to the American people is this: we will not stop working to end the epidemic of gun violence in every community, because we do not have a moment, nor a life to spare,” Harris said.
In Maryland, HB 430 is a canary in a coal mine. If passed, Democrats in other states and at the federal level will likely follow the same gun-grabbing playbook.
