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.

  • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    True. Before that you needed to have a certain job. Purposive open carry laws. The other gun law at the time was breach of peace, which is what you’d have been charged with for open carrying. The idea that guns cannot be regulated is a modern invention by people who want Americans to kill each other, and who don’t give a fuck about rights.

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Seriously. People had to register their guns since the country was founded. There were also safe storage laws and bans on concealed and open carry.

      • FireTower@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Source? Pre '64 there wasn’t even mandated serialization of commerical sold firearms so a registration system would have been difficult to implement.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You literally had to hand in your guns when you came into town. Don’t need numbers when the sheriff is keeping them in a safe with ownership tags on them.

        • SeaJ@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          https://theconversation.com/five-types-of-gun-laws-the-founding-fathers-loved-85364

          Not difficult at all since there were a lot fewer people and most people knew each other. Because the militia was supposed to be our main defense, being a part of it meant your guns had to be inspected to be well-regulated.

          We did quickly move away from the militia focused model though when there was a big loss against Natives due to terribly coordinated militias.

          • FireTower@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That law is about ensuring the militia’s guns were of adequate quality to fight. If they came to your house and found you didn’t have a good fighting gun at hand you’d get in trouble. I’m not sure that’s the parallel you want it to be.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s exactly the parallel it should be. Because there is no militia anymore. That doesn’t mean you ignore half the amendment. It means no one qualifies for the second amendment anymore.

          • karakoram@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Did you actually read your “source”? The article claims a lot but offers no substantiation to many of the claims.