Maryland's handgun licensing law has been struck down by a federal appeals court
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.
We no longer need a well regulated militia, we have a permanent standing army capable of answering any threat, anywhere in the world within 24 hours.
Might be time for an update on the ole constitution, the problems of 1780 aren't really the problems we have today.
Maybe if we still had a more militia like system we wouldn't be engaged in an eternal state of war in countries across the globe. The Founding Father's critiques of standing armies were made because they didn't want to become what they overthrew.
Sure, and we can debate the merits of that all day. Fact is that right now the US' primary export is force, our primary industry is war, and far behind that is literally anything else.
I would love if we cut the size of the military to admit a tenth of it's current size, and spent all of that money on social programs.
As it happens, that would probably cripple the American economy for decades.
But if you can figure out how to uncouple the US from it's military industrial complex, going to a Swiss militia style home defense network wouldn't be a bad idea. Give everyone a rifle, require they train with it so many hours a year, call it good.
The Constitution is not a sacrosanct document, we’ve major changes before, including repealing amendments. We shouldn’t be afraid of changing it if it’s doing more harm than good. The President and Vice President are elected differently now, the 3/5ths compromise was repealed by the 14th Amendment, and 18th Amendment, enacting Prohibition, was struck down by the 21st.
It's my belief that the reason nobody has seriously tried to change the Constitution to remove or modify the 2nd amendment is that they know it's currently impossible. Changing the Constitution requires a serious amount of working together and agreement between the state and federal governments, and that just doesn't exist right now.
That's why some states are trying to pass unconstitutional laws, it's easier to do that and get away with it at least for a little bit than it is to change the construction.
The second amendment also doesn't create a well regulated militia.
What use is a militia of morbidly obese men who can't even demonstrate basic firearm safety, whose entire contribution is "have gun"?
I don't know why we're suppose to politely play along with the hero fantasies of people who wouldn't even wear masks in a pandemic but insist they'd lay down their lives to liberate people from the fascists that they enthusiastically voted for.
The well regulated militia that's referenced in the amendment is the army. That's what the amendment is meant to protect us from.
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.
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?
Oh, so your interpretation is just mind-bendingly stupid. Got it.
Aw someone realized they are wrong
If a government does any oppressing, it's almost always done with its military, not in spite of it.
No shit. That's what the second amendment is for
Wait, so you're arguing that the second amendment is designed for arming an oppressive military?
No, the second amendment is designed to enable citizens to protect themselves in the event of an oppressive military.
Okay, I'm really struggling to make any sense of what you're saying here. If you're suggesting that it should be read as "while a militia is necessary to a free state, the people should be armed against it", that just doesn't track at all.
First, the militia was the people. When the second amendment was first written in 1789, the Continental Amy had been disbanded for six years, and it would be another three before Congress created a standing army.
Second, it just doesn't pass regular reading muster. The first half is building up in support of the second, not against it. There's no language to suggest that the right of the people to bear arms should be in opposition to the militia (which, remember, was the people).
It doesn't matter if you're struggling with it or not as the supreme court has already ruled on it.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-4/ALDE_00013264/.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
This is the correct interpretation. The purpose of the supreme Court was exactly for clarification of that nature regarding constitutional matters.
If people have a problem with that then a constitutional amendment is needed. But that would require hard work and bipartisan communication and agreement.
Article I Section 8 part 12 discusses the army. Parts 15 and 16 discuss the militia. They are two separate and distinct entities.
Constitutionally, "militia" refers to the obligations of every American person to provide the security of the state, individual and collectively.