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.

  • Ebennz@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    10 months ago

    The well regulated militia that’s referenced in the amendment is the army. That’s what the amendment is meant to protect us from.

    • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        10 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.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

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

            • SheeEttin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              10 months ago

              Wait, so you’re arguing that the second amendment is designed for arming an oppressive military?

              • Ebennz@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

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

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Article I Section 8 part 12 discusses the army. Parts 15 and 16 discuss the militia. They are two separate and distinct entities.

      Constitutionally, “militia” refers to the obligations of every American person to provide the security of the state, individual and collectively.