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.
Quite a few actually. State background checks are actually more effective than the NICS system.
But this theory of gun laws must have existed for 200 years is ridiculous too. We could be stopping more shootings by making private sales illegal. We could stop many more by restricting to bolt action and revolvers. Both of which aren’t going to pass the test simply because technology has advanced since then.
So the solution is just to actually enforce existing gun laws?
Not entirely sure what you’re saying here, but I think you’re saying that laws have to change with technology. And I agree. Nobody should privately own a nuclear weapon, ballistic missile, etc. That’s just insane.
But, there is a balance. For now at least, it’s still a fact that a dedicated group of rebels with just semi-automatic weapons can wreak havoc on an organized military. Scale that up to a much larger part of the population and you’re actually looking at a population that can overthrow a tyrannical government if necessary. So we have to ask what “societal sacrifices” are we willing to make in order to make sure we can prevent a dictator from taking over?
And if you’re going to hem and haw about “there is no compromise” or some bullshit like that… then answer this question. If it is abhorrent to even suggest that the right to own firearms is more important than 100% safety from mass shootings, then surely you support a complete surveillance state right? You probably have no idea just how easy it is to make explosives in America. It’s frighteningly easy. Growing up, my friends and I made fuel air bombs and made liquid barium nitrate to create homebrew thermate out in the country. We were doing that just for fun as dumb teenagers with a knack for engineering and chemistry. Someone who’s dedicated could do far, far worse.
So, if you think that preventing any violence due to guns is more important than having the tools to overthrow a dictator… How far are you willing to go to stop all other forms of violence? 24/7 monitoring of all purchases made by Americans? Monitoring all of their conversations? Eager to hear your ideals and solutions.
I mean, Maggoty answered your question fairly, and then you changed what you asked him and moved the goal posts. That seems a bit dishonest to me.
I’m sorry, but the only dishonesty here is admitting that current gun laws would stop many mass shootings if they were just fucking enforced while trying not to say it out loud and then using that to try and justify more legislation that does nothing.
Sounds like a budgetary and enforcement issue. Not something that needs more legislation.
Moving the goal posts after you ask a question, then lying about it, is not dishonet?
Pull the other foot, please!