Biggfoot44
Ultimate Member
- Aug 2, 2009
- 33,469
Lots of people were looking for insurance before they even had their permits.
This isn't That type of insurance. This is just for accidental discharges .
Lots of people were looking for insurance before they even had their permits.
Thanks, I was focused on the words "carry" and "accident"This isn't That type of insurance. This is just for accidental discharges .
Yup.If the report I heard last night was accurate, the type of insurance the bill calls for doesn't even exist.
Unfortunately, there's no way to sue a legislature for legislating, no matter what their output smells like.This is the kind of horseshit that waste tax money. Every one of these “so called” representatives need to be sued in civil court. Is that a possibility? Individual lawsuits against each one of these clowns?
And, what about all of the criminals that are arrested for violent crimes with a firearm. Are they going to heavily fine them for not having liability insurance after dropping the firearm charges? Of course not! Once again, the piece of sh!t MGA and Rep Fair wants to penalize the law abiding citizens.
I really wish I could move out of this hell hole of a state.
I am going to make a longer post.This isn't That type of insurance. This is just for accidental discharges .
Since it's the only reasonable justification, waiting to see their statistics on how many people Maryland permit holders have killed or injured in cases that were not self defense.
I think this is accurate.I am going to make a longer post.
But no its not only for accidental discharges. It says "accidents" and I would assume that means you miss your target ( bad guy ) and hit a car. I am sure the courts will consider that an accident.
It is also required to carry even if you dont discharge the gun at all. AKA a cop sees you carrying they can ask to see your insurance, if you dont have one they give you the ticket. There is no 4th or 5th amendment protection here. If you carry you must have the insurance, same as no 4th or 5th amendment protection for handing over your drivers licence and ins when driving a car.
NO. Sovereign immunity.s that a possibility? Individual lawsuits against each one of these clowns?
If cited, the ACCUSED has the right to trial in District Court with an attorney of their choice.Once again,
It sounds like the penalty for failure to comply is the "issuance of a citation."
Any comments, jokes, or poals ?
"Reasonably", yes. But we live in 4CA at the Federal level, and at State level, every single judge was appointed with the full blessing of the Party. And the Antis in MGA well know it.If cited, the ACCUSED has the right to trial in District Court with an attorney of their choice.
At that time, competent counsel should provide the Judge and prosecutor with the full Bruen order AND a framed copy of the Bill of Rights.
No judge could reasonably CONVICT someone under the proposed statute (if it passes)
These are the same judges that grant a thousand "nol prosequi" and "stet" decisions a week for people accused of violent crimes."Reasonably", yes. But we live in 4CA at the Federal level, and at State level, every single judge was appointed with the full blessing of the Party. And the Antis in MGA well know it.
About the only time we can win in this state is when a law is like the MoCo carry statute that's a prima facie an in-your-face affront to established law that the court simply can't ignore. And even that was only a partial win at the PI level.
I AGREE !!This is the kind of horseshit that waste tax money. Every one of these “so called” representatives need to be sued in civil court. Is that a possibility? Individual lawsuits against each one of these clowns?