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.
Exercising your first amendment rights doesn't kill in most instances. In instances that it can, such as inciting violence, it stops being protected speech
It doesn't even have to be fatal. If it incites panic or causes misuse of emergency services, it's a crime baby.
And just like with 1A rights we have laws that limit those effects of 2A rights, just as it should be. Just as you can't go around inciting panic with your words, you can't legally brandish a firearm in public to incite panic. ETC.
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.
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...
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.
Correct, if people are harmed. But you can shout fire in a theater, as it's protected speech.
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.
https://www.whalenlawoffice.com/blog/legal-mythbusting-series-yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/
No just no...stop parroting this crap.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes you can, that was the whole damn point of bringing it up...
Go do it.
That's your rebuttal??? Lol
Why are you pulling a gun?
Exactly. If you murder someone, you will also not be protected by the right to keep and bear arms. In general, instigating harm against others is never covered by rights.
Now if only we could implement some sort of way to maybe check if someone has some disqualifying action in their past so we can make sure that right is adequately protected without risk of further harm. Maybe we could have like a check in the person's background and make sure they know how to use it properly so we know they aren't falling into the wrong hands.
Nope, that won’t work. Sigh. Looks like there’s “no way to prevent this.” Crazy that this is the “only nation where this regularly happens.”
Are you assuming that someone who knows they are not allowed to carry would go through a BG check and Finger prints...in order to be told they can't carry? Really??? That's the logic you're going with?
Are you assuming they'd stay away from buying guns if there wasn't a verification system? That the honor system would work here?
You losing your protection for having a gun does nothing to help the person that you killed with it.
Yet we don't license speech on the grounds that inciting violence isn't protected.
Owning guns does not guarantee gun violence. Most of the time it seems to be gross negligence.
We license people to drive, yet look at how many bad drivers there are.
This is a callous stance, but I think the left needs to shut the fuck up about guns. All it does is galvanize the right wing and drive them straight to the polls. Gun regulation does not win elections and there are so many more pressing problems. Fact of the matter is gun violence, while tragic, statistically isn't something worthy of losing elections over. Climate change, education, healthcare, all are higher stakes issues with far more lives at risk.
Edit: down vote all you want, the elections will still be lost and the supreme court will continue to be irreparably stacked against you. I don't know how much more evidence you need that the left needs tactics, guile, and strategy. The Right is playing chess while the left is making a sandwich. They aren't even playing the same game.
You nailed it, if the left put political capital into things that would actually curb the violence, and left the guns alone, they would sweep elections constantly.
Exactly. And most of the left usually argues that gun violence is a mental health issue anyway. Which means if we tackled the bigger issues you'd see a marked decline in gun violence without passing a single gun related law. Gun violence is a symptom. Let's fight the disease.
President Trump removed the restrictions the prevented the mentally ill from buying guns.
Kinda proves my point actually. Winning elections is the overall goal that must be addressed first. When we lose, we literally regress.