BALTIMORE (AP) — 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.

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.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      95·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
          64·
          1 year ago

          we need to tackle the reasons behind the violence

          except for the reason being the prevelancy and availability of deadly firearms with no barriers to entry, that is a special reason that is forbidden to be discussed because everyone has a fantasy about being able to take on the US military in a one man coup.

          they can also bomb it or gas it

          and yet they don’t

          you don’t give a fuck about innocent children dying, do you?

          what the hell kind of statement is that? You should edit that comment out and apologize as it’s completely uncalled for.

          you just want to virtue signal on the internet

          yes, as the internet is a series of signals, both electromagnetic and orthographic all any of us can do is signal things on the internet. It’s not like I can physically do anything online, it being a virtual medium. How would you suggest I communicate without signaling anything, and how do you recommend behaving if not according to the virtues that I personally hold?

          you can show your friends

          I assure you I show none of my irl friends my comment history- do you?

          grow up… put some thought into these issues

          Says the guy who accused me of not caring about children dying?!?!

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            11·
            1 year ago

            Bombings were much more common than mass shootings, and much deadlier, until they declined in popularity about 20 years ago. There are still random bombings, (and tons of bomb threats) they just don’t get nearly as much media attention.

            Where firearms are heavily restricted, bombings are much more common.

              • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                1·
                1 year ago

                Now show us mass shootings.

                And clarify what areas you’re talking about, because it certainly isn’t the US, and it certainly isn’t global.

                • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
                  2·
                  1 year ago

                  Mass Shootings is a propaganda statistic devised to reduce numbers. Why do I care if 3 people got shot instead of 2? It doesn’t make those 2 people any less shot.

                  • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                    1·
                    1 year ago

                    And the other half of my comment: your numbers aren’t from the US (way too high) nor are they from the world as a whole (way too low.). Where are you getting them from?