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.
I just have one question for anyone who’s here and thought this was a good law. What mass shooting would this have prevented? Thank you.
No way to stop this says only country where this regularly happens.
We absolutely can stop this. Democrat leadership just doesn’t fucking want to, for the same reason Republican leadership doesn’t want to actually ban all abortion. It’s a wedge issue. Solving this issue means it’s harder for them to drum up voter support.
I want to stop this, but anyone who thinks the solutions is laws like this doesn’t actually care. You WILL NOT stop gun violence with these kinds of laws. We need to tackle the reasons behind the violence and put in place some actual fucking security at places that are common targets. If someone can shoot up a school, they can also bomb it, gas it, whatever. But you don’t want to hear that, do you? You don’t actually give a fuck about innocent children dying. You just want to virtue signal on the internet so you can show your friends how you “totally OWNED this debate”.
Grow up. Put some actual thought into how these issues can be solved instead of barfing out a thing you heard before.
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.
and yet they don’t
what the hell kind of statement is that? You should edit that comment out and apologize as it’s completely uncalled for.
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?
I assure you I show none of my irl friends my comment history- do you?
Says the guy who accused me of not caring about children dying?!?!
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.
2001-
2003edit typo: 2013Deaths by guns: 406,500
Deaths by all other forms of terrorism: 3,380
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.
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.
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?
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!
At least two thirds of them according to this paper https://injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-021-00330-0
Maybe I’m missing something, but what exactly in this bill would prevent people with a history of domestic violence from obtaining firearms? Isn’t it already illegal for someone convicted of that crime from owning a firearm in Maryland?
If the background checks are somehow not preventing people from owning firearms who are already legally barred from doing so, then the problem is the background check process. Why the fuck do so many leftists keep on refusing to acknowledge that the problem is how consistently background checks are done? It’s fucking insane.
deleted by creator
He’s one of the idiots.