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.

  • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    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.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.