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.

  • @AbidanYre@lemmy.worldEnglish
    4•7 months ago

    You think the second amendment is to protect us from what it calls “necessary to the security of a free State”?

    You might want to go read it again.

    • @Ebennz@lemmy.ml
      -3•7 months ago

      Yes, you need a military to defend your country from other countries. And yes, it’s to protect us from an oppressive government. Remember the revolutionary war lil buddy?

      • @SheeEttin@lemmy.worldEnglish
        -1•7 months ago

        If a government does any oppressing, it’s almost always done with its military, not in spite of it.

            • @Ebennz@lemmy.ml
              2•7 months ago

              No, the second amendment is designed to enable citizens to protect themselves in the event of an oppressive military.

              • @SheeEttin@lemmy.worldEnglish
                -1•7 months ago

                Okay, I’m really struggling to make any sense of what you’re saying here. If you’re suggesting that it should be read as “while a militia is necessary to a free state, the people should be armed against it”, that just doesn’t track at all.

                First, the militia was the people. When the second amendment was first written in 1789, the Continental Amy had been disbanded for six years, and it would be another three before Congress created a standing army.

                Second, it just doesn’t pass regular reading muster. The first half is building up in support of the second, not against it. There’s no language to suggest that the right of the people to bear arms should be in opposition to the militia (which, remember, was the people).

                • @Ebennz@lemmy.ml
                  3•7 months ago

                  It doesn’t matter if you’re struggling with it or not as the supreme court has already ruled on it.

                  The majority arrived at this conclusion after undertaking an extensive analysis of the founding-era meaning of the words in the Second Amendment’s “prefatory clause” (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”) and “operative clause” (“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”).

                  The majority analyzed the Second Amendment’s two clauses and concluded that the prefatory clause announces the Amendment’s purpose.

                  https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-4/ALDE_00013264/.

                  It ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms—unconnected with service in a militia

                  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

                  • @GaMEChld@lemmy.world
                    2•7 months ago

                    This is the correct interpretation. The purpose of the supreme Court was exactly for clarification of that nature regarding constitutional matters.

                    If people have a problem with that then a constitutional amendment is needed. But that would require hard work and bipartisan communication and agreement.