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.

  • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year 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
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year 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
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year 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
            ·
            1 year ago

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

            • Ebennz@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

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