Maryland's handgun licensing law has been struck down by a federal appeals court
Maryland's handgun licensing law has been struck down by a federal appeals court
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
Jesus. Those requirements are not a lot to ask.
It's easier than voting in some places.
You have to take a 4-hour course to vote?
you have to stand in a 6 hour line in direct sunlight at 100° Temps where food and water is forbidden to vote here in Georgia.
That's a feature, not a bug.
Who pays for the 4-hour course?
The person who pays for the gun.
In Maryland? It looks like the course is free but the instructors generally charge $25 for the cert.
Instructors just volunteer their time for free?
Permanently Deleted
In most states with similar systems the person applying.
Permanently Deleted
That's basically the requirements in my state for a cpl, but requiring that just to purchase a gun seems a bit much.
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.
There is no way to be a responsible gun owner without education.
Here it comes, the talking points.
Take note, they will try to push this nonsense to make it mandatory that everyone pay for classes in order to purchase a firearm.
They want it to be seen as objective fact that you can't be a responsible gun owner without paying for classes so they can suppress gun ownership and eventually ban it.
SeaJ, be honest. Do you think civilian gun ownership should be banned? His answer to this is a big fat yes, and taking the 'more reasonable' approach of requiring paid classes is just a stepping stone to reach his end goal.
Take note, they will try to push this nonsense to make it mandatory that everyone pay for classes in order to purchase a firearm.
Classes should be free.
Who is this they you are constantly referring to?
SeaJ, be honest. Do you think civilian gun ownership should be banned? His answer to this is a big fat yes, and taking the 'more reasonable' approach of requiring paid classes is just a stepping stone to reach his end goal.
Hopefully you won that argument you completely made up. No. I do not wish to see gun ownership be completely illegal. However, safety classes should be required, have background checks (system needs to be open to the public) and wait periods, and there should be safe storage laws. That is about it. No magazine capacity limits or 'assault' weapons bans.
Sorry that I prefer not to have people who do not know what the fuck they are doing to be carrying around very deadly weapons. Responsible gun owners are all fine being educated and storing their shit properly. It sounds like you do not fall into that category.
So before 2013 there were no responsible gun owners?
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.
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.
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.
One of these things is guaranteed in the constitution and one isn't.
Sure, but that’s a different claim than the one you made.
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.
I was not the one to claim that “That's basically the requirements in my state for a cpl”. If it isn’t really relevant, I’m not sure why you brought it up.
Permanently Deleted
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.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No where dies it say militia members only.
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 then you don't get guns.
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.
The People. That's not individually. It's a group reference by definition. So if 100,000 people qualify for the well regulated militia then the right is fulfilled.
It certainly doesn't confer an individual right to carry firearms 24/7 and use them on your fellow citizens. The reason it mentions a militia is because we didn't have a standing army. The minute men were supposed to be our defense. But that doesn't mean every person was armed every moment or even that everyone stored guns at home. In towns it was common to require storage in an armory because they understood why they were there and you'd generally have plenty of warning before Canadian troops reached your town.
The expansion of gun carry and ownership is nothing but ideology run amok, fueled by industry lobbyists.
Congress was given the power to raise armies, it's also not true that militias were meant to fill that role. Again the right is not granted to militia members, it granted to the people, which means everyone. Do you believe only 100k people have the right to petition government, peacefully assembly, and be protected from warrantless search and seizure? You can't just magically decide it means something different for arms.
Sure you can. Because there's no similar qualifying statement in the first and fourth amendment. You keep trying to ignore everything but "the people" and the fact that's a group reference, not an individual reference.
The entire "originalist" argument is based on bad faith revisionist history and semantics.
any requirement is way too much, the constitution isn't to restrict us, we the people,but rather the government.
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.
the problem is people like yourself don't just stop at "common sense limitations"
people like yourself
Please, tell me what my desired limitations are?