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.

  • RaoulDook@lemmy.worldEnglish
    204·
    1 year ago

    And just like with 1A rights we have laws that limit those effects of 2A rights, just as it should be. Just as you can’t go around inciting panic with your words, you can’t legally brandish a firearm in public to incite panic. ETC.

    • TWeaK@lemm.eeEnglish
      69·
      1 year ago

      The difference being shouting “FIRE” in a theatre only remotely might kill people, while pulling a gun will much more likely lead to death. Also, the laws against shouting “FIRE” have proven far more effective than anything with guns.

      You cannot compare the 2nd Amendment with any other law. It doesn’t have any rational justification behind it.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        53·
        1 year ago

        You can absolutely shout fire in a theater. That example was used as an example of protected speech.

        The second has rational judgement, you just don’t like it because you think govs can’t turn into destructive forces…

        • TWeaK@lemm.eeEnglish
          52·
          1 year ago

          No, shouting fire in a theatre (when there is no fire) is explicitly not protected speech. Schenck v. United States and Brandenburg v. Ohio. At least, depending on the actual consequence - if people die rushing out the theatre and it is apparent you were lying, then you’re not going to be protected.

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            42·
            1 year ago

            Correct, if people are harmed. But you can shout fire in a theater, as it’s protected speech.

            • TWeaK@lemm.eeEnglish
              21·
              1 year ago

              Actually no. If you read the court decisions I referenced, the exclusion is for “speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action”. You cannot reasonably say that shouting “fire” in a theatre when there is none has any other purpose other than to cause panic, thus it is prohibited speech. In practice, if no one gets hurt you probably won’t be prosecuted, but you will have still broken the law.

        • interceder270@lemmy.world
          12·
          1 year ago

          Sorry bro, you’ve read some of the latest bullshit that sounds clever but is actually a load of malarkey.

          You can shout fire in a theater if there is a fire. (or reason to suspect there is one)

          If there isn’t a fire, you do not get to hide behind 1st amendment protections.