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.

  • TWeaKEnglish
    79·
    7 months ago

    The difference being shouting “FIRE” in a theatre only remotely might kill people, while pulling a gun will much more likely lead to death. Also, the laws against shouting “FIRE” have proven far more effective than anything with guns.

    You cannot compare the 2nd Amendment with any other law. It doesn’t have any rational justification behind it.

    • SupraMario@lemmy.world
      53·
      7 months ago

      You can absolutely shout fire in a theater. That example was used as an example of protected speech.

      The second has rational judgement, you just don’t like it because you think govs can’t turn into destructive forces…

      • TWeaKEnglish
        52·
        7 months ago

        No, shouting fire in a theatre (when there is no fire) is explicitly not protected speech. Schenck v. United States and Brandenburg v. Ohio. At least, depending on the actual consequence - if people die rushing out the theatre and it is apparent you were lying, then you’re not going to be protected.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          42·
          7 months ago

          Correct, if people are harmed. But you can shout fire in a theater, as it’s protected speech.

          • TWeaKEnglish
            21·
            7 months ago

            Actually no. If you read the court decisions I referenced, the exclusion is for “speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action”. You cannot reasonably say that shouting “fire” in a theatre when there is none has any other purpose other than to cause panic, thus it is prohibited speech. In practice, if no one gets hurt you probably won’t be prosecuted, but you will have still broken the law.

              • interceder270@lemmy.world
                1·
                7 months ago

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

                Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

                The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action”.

                See my other comment about buying into the latest bullshit that sounds clever but is actually a load of malarkey. Don’t assume that ‘law office’ websites are the holy grail of legal truth.

                Your entire ‘uhm actually’ can be summed up in the following sentence: You can shout fire in a theater if there is a fire.

                You’re the second person I’ve had to explain this to. Trust me, you’ve been played and the sooner you realize it the easier your life will be.

                • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                  11·
                  7 months ago

                  No you can shout fire even if there is no fire…wtf are you on about, that’s just a law office that explains it in layman’s term which you clearly need.

                  • interceder270@lemmy.world
                    11·
                    7 months ago

                    Yeah, if you have reason to believe there is a fire.

                    How about this. If you think you can shout fire in a theater without legal penalties that the 1st Amendment does not shield you from, then go do it.

                    I dare you.

          • IHadTwoCows
            11·
            7 months ago

            So then you’re saying that liberals and leftists CAN publicly call for the roundup, imprisonment, and execution of all Republicans who push fake news in online and broadcast media?

              • IHadTwoCows
                11·
                7 months ago

                Liberals have stopped it. Liberals keep defending your “free speech”. You have all the rights you could possibly ask for because of liberals.

                You just chose to piss all over them.

                • AlDente@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                  1·
                  7 months ago

                  So the liberals are stopping the liberals? That’s neat. I’m pretty close to a free-speech absolutist so you can say whatever you want around me.

      • interceder270@lemmy.world
        12·
        7 months ago

        Sorry bro, you’ve read some of the latest bullshit that sounds clever but is actually a load of malarkey.

        You can shout fire in a theater if there is a fire. (or reason to suspect there is one)

        If there isn’t a fire, you do not get to hide behind 1st amendment protections.