A federal appeals court has struck down a Maryland law requiring people to obtain a special license before purchasing a handgun. Judges on the 4th U.S.

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.

    • White_Flight@lemmy.world
      7·
      1 year ago

      any requirement is way too much, the constitution isn’t to restrict us, we the people,but rather the government.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
        7·
        1 year ago

        Yeah… No. It’s meant for both. You do know we had slavery (and still do) in the constitution, right? It’s restricted a ton of people’s rights. That said, the 9th amendment should protect most. The 2nd amendment does not apply anymore, since we don’t require conscripted militias to protect the nation while we have a standing professional army.

        Im all for gun rights, but it has to have reasonable limits. Firing one round is honestly not enough in my opinion. You should have to prove competency with firing and maintaining your firearm, as well as proper safe methods for storing and transporting it.

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      6·
      1 year ago

      That’s basically the requirements in my state for a cpl, but requiring that just to purchase a gun seems a bit much.

      • SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca
        18·
        1 year ago

        To purchase a lethal weapon, fingerprints for a background check and a four hour training course is too much? I’m pretty sure a commercial pilot license requires more than 4 hours of training.

            • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
              7·
              1 year ago

              It’s really not. Firearms are allowed by the constitution and therefore only minimal restrictions are allowed. Fingerprints and permits are far from minimal, and background checks are already a federal requirement. The fact it’s hard to be a pilot isn’t really relevant.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            2·
            1 year ago

            Then join the National Guard, local police force, or military. Because when that was written that’s what the Militia was for. There is no town militia waiting to get called out anymore which means it should be defunct. Instead we ignore half the dang thing and pretend we’re all the militia when in reality if Canada invaded tomorrow the Army would be pleading with civilians to get out of the way, not recruiting meal team six.

            • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
              1·
              1 year ago

              The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No where dies it say militia members only.

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                1·
                1 year ago

                See there you go. Missing half the dang Amendment.

                A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

                You cannot argue an uninfringed right to personal ownership without also arguing that we need universal conscription and continuing training for all able bodied adults. And if you can’t fulfill that duty then you don’t get guns.

                • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
                  1·
                  1 year ago

                  And the right is explicitly granted to the people, a well regulated militia is irrelevant to the existence of the right. Now you could argue the first phrase grants the right to conscription to the government I suppose, but no one is really making that argument. The right is explicitly given to the people, not people that are conscripted or subject to it, the constitution and amendments are very good about being explicit when they are limiting the scope of a power or right to a subgroup and that isn’t the case here.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
          9·
          1 year ago

          Just a regular drivers license requires more than that, and we pretty much require those to live (because the system is fucked up, but still…) and their purpose is not to kill.

      • SeaJ@lemm.ee
        16·
        1 year ago

        Why is that a bit much? You should have to know how to properly use and store a deadly weapon, shouldn’t you? There is no way to be a responsible gun owner without education.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
            10·
            1 year ago

            What? Does your brain function? Do you think people weren’t driving cars safely before driver’s licenses were required? Of course there were responsible gun owners, but there were also more irresponsible gun owners because being responsible wasn’t a requirement.

            If I put a height requirment for a roller-coaster, does that imply that before no one above that height rode it? Obviously not. It only means that after fewer people below it will, because before there was nothing stopping them.

    • FireTower@lemmy.world
      27·
      1 year ago

      The earliest hand gun licensing systems weren’t implemented until the just before the Civil War in the South (for the exact reasons you’d think the South would do that).

        • SeaJ@lemm.ee
          5·
          1 year ago

          Seriously. People had to register their guns since the country was founded. There were also safe storage laws and bans on concealed and open carry.

          • FireTower@lemmy.world
            11·
            1 year ago

            Source? Pre '64 there wasn’t even mandated serialization of commerical sold firearms so a registration system would have been difficult to implement.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              3·
              1 year ago

              You literally had to hand in your guns when you came into town. Don’t need numbers when the sheriff is keeping them in a safe with ownership tags on them.

            • SeaJ@lemm.ee
              3·
              1 year ago

              https://theconversation.com/five-types-of-gun-laws-the-founding-fathers-loved-85364

              Not difficult at all since there were a lot fewer people and most people knew each other. Because the militia was supposed to be our main defense, being a part of it meant your guns had to be inspected to be well-regulated.

              We did quickly move away from the militia focused model though when there was a big loss against Natives due to terribly coordinated militias.

              • FireTower@lemmy.world
                6·
                1 year ago

                That law is about ensuring the militia’s guns were of adequate quality to fight. If they came to your house and found you didn’t have a good fighting gun at hand you’d get in trouble. I’m not sure that’s the parallel you want it to be.

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  2·
                  1 year ago

                  It’s exactly the parallel it should be. Because there is no militia anymore. That doesn’t mean you ignore half the amendment. It means no one qualifies for the second amendment anymore.

              • karakoram@lemmy.world
                5·
                1 year ago

                Did you actually read your “source”? The article claims a lot but offers no substantiation to many of the claims.

              • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
                3·
                1 year ago

                And after we moved away from militias, people stopped acting like the 2nd amendment applies to anything, right? If a militia isn’t required anymore, the basis for the 2nd amendment is gone, so it doesn’t apply.

                I wish logic was used by people more often…

  • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
    16·
    1 year ago

    I have to say, the US looks crazier and crazier by the day. It’s not just the guns, it’s pretty much everything these days.

    • spyd3r@sh.itjust.works
      17·
      1 year ago

      You’re literally right it does look crazier, but that is almost entirely because of how our mass media and cancerous 24/hr news cycle work.

      If you turn your TV off and go outside, reality does not match what you see on TV, or worse, read on the internet.

      The “crazy” is generally confined and limited to fringe elements that get 1000x the attention and signal boosting than normal people do.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      9·
      1 year ago

      Quite a few actually. State background checks are actually more effective than the NICS system.

      But this theory of gun laws must have existed for 200 years is ridiculous too. We could be stopping more shootings by making private sales illegal. We could stop many more by restricting to bolt action and revolvers. Both of which aren’t going to pass the test simply because technology has advanced since then.

        • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
          5·
          1 year ago

          we need to tackle the reasons behind the violence

          except for the reason being the prevelancy and availability of deadly firearms with no barriers to entry, that is a special reason that is forbidden to be discussed because everyone has a fantasy about being able to take on the US military in a one man coup.

          they can also bomb it or gas it

          and yet they don’t

          you don’t give a fuck about innocent children dying, do you?

          what the hell kind of statement is that? You should edit that comment out and apologize as it’s completely uncalled for.

          you just want to virtue signal on the internet

          yes, as the internet is a series of signals, both electromagnetic and orthographic all any of us can do is signal things on the internet. It’s not like I can physically do anything online, it being a virtual medium. How would you suggest I communicate without signaling anything, and how do you recommend behaving if not according to the virtues that I personally hold?

          you can show your friends

          I assure you I show none of my irl friends my comment history- do you?

          grow up… put some thought into these issues

          Says the guy who accused me of not caring about children dying?!?!