A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down Maryland’s handgun licensing law, finding that its requirements, which include submitting fingerprints for a background check and taking a four-hour firearms safety course, are unconstitutionally restrictive.

In a 2-1 ruling, judges on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond said they considered the case in light of a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that “effected a sea change in Second Amendment law.”

The underlying lawsuit was filed in 2016 as a challenge to a Maryland law requiring people to obtain a special license before purchasing a handgun. The law, which was passed in 2013 in the aftermath of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, laid out a series of necessary steps for would-be gun purchasers: completing four hours of safety training that includes firing one live round, submitting fingerprints and passing a background check, being 21 and residing in Maryland.

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, a Democrat, said he was disappointed in the circuit court’s ruling and will “continue to fight for this law.” He said his administration is reviewing the ruling and considering its options.

  • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    You are wrong, and it’s good that we have such strong protections on our inherent rights to effective self defense.

    Fortunately, there’s nothing you can do about it as well.

    • resin85@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Astounding how the “well regulated” part of the second amendment is simply washed away by gun zealots.

    • Stovetop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      The longer guns continue being a problem, the likelier we get to electing the legislative body needed to pass a new amendment canceling the 2A in its entirety. The longer it stands, the harder it gets to pass the compromise measures needed to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people, and so the problem keeps getting worse.

      • Ebennz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Can’t wait for only billionaires and their armed thugs to be the only ones able to defend themselves

      • FireTower@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Unenumeration of a once recognized right, wouldn’t give congress the authority to inhibit people from practicing that right.

        The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. -9th Amendment

      • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You should really read up about the amendment process. It’s not something that Congress can do by itself, it requires 75% of the 50 states to ratify it after the initial hurdles. It’s not going to happen, because there will always be at least 13+ states that will vote to keep the 2nd Amendment, and that’s a good thing. You should be happy that our rights are safe, because it’s pretty fuckin’ hard to get new rights, you know they don’t just hand out new ones regularly.

      • MagicShel@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        A different Supreme Court could redecide settled law just like Roe v Wade. If 2A needs to die to keep guns out of dangerous hands, then it needs to die. The absolute refusal to compromise means eventually they’ll lose everything. Okay.

        I don’t have a problem with responsible gun ownership. You’d think they’d make some compromises to soften the resolve of the anti-gun crowd. I wouldn’t be with them if we had sane laws, but here we all are.

    • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You are wrong, and it’s good that we have such strong protections on our inherent rights to effective self defense.

      “Good” how? Because it makes your pee pee tingly? Americans are less safe from criminals, tyrants and the monthly “legal gun owner opening fire on a crowd” than anyone in comparable countries.

      Fortunately, there’s nothing you can do about it as well.

      Make buying a gun without proper checks and training a felony, remove the guns as evidence of a crime, try those responsible in a court and if they’re convicted, congratulations, you’re now a felon who has been shown due process then stripped of their rights.

      Or just stop voting Republican. Personally, I don’t care if “responsible gun owners” want to die in a hail of bullets after shooting at innocent people, just because it was democratically decided that the “responsible” part shouldn’t be voluntary.

      After all, would we even notice a difference? Legal gun owners are already responsible for 80% of mass shootings.

      • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why are you bringing your weird penis thoughts into a discussion about the constitutional rights of US citizens? Keep that to yourself, because it’s gross.