this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023
219 points (98.2% liked)

News

37103 readers
1333 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

True. Before that you needed to have a certain job. Purposive open carry laws. The other gun law at the time was breach of peace, which is what you'd have been charged with for open carrying. The idea that guns cannot be regulated is a modern invention by people who want Americans to kill each other, and who don't give a fuck about rights.

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee -5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Seriously. People had to register their guns since the country was founded. There were also safe storage laws and bans on concealed and open carry.

[–] FireTower@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

Source? Pre '64 there wasn't even mandated serialization of commerical sold firearms so a registration system would have been difficult to implement.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee -3 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

Literally none of what that opinion piece says shows any laws. The first one being registration...it wasn't gun registration it was basically a draft registration. You posted up some opinion piece from an anti gun nut and said "see it's true"... what's worse is dude uses his own book as a source...

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

You literally had to hand in your guns when you came into town. Don't need numbers when the sheriff is keeping them in a safe with ownership tags on them.

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee -4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

https://theconversation.com/five-types-of-gun-laws-the-founding-fathers-loved-85364

Not difficult at all since there were a lot fewer people and most people knew each other. Because the militia was supposed to be our main defense, being a part of it meant your guns had to be inspected to be well-regulated.

We did quickly move away from the militia focused model though when there was a big loss against Natives due to terribly coordinated militias.

[–] FireTower@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

That law is about ensuring the militia's guns were of adequate quality to fight. If they came to your house and found you didn't have a good fighting gun at hand you'd get in trouble. I'm not sure that's the parallel you want it to be.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

It's exactly the parallel it should be. Because there is no militia anymore. That doesn't mean you ignore half the amendment. It means no one qualifies for the second amendment anymore.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip -1 points 2 years ago

And after we moved away from militias, people stopped acting like the 2nd amendment applies to anything, right? If a militia isn't required anymore, the basis for the 2nd amendment is gone, so it doesn't apply.

I wish logic was used by people more often...