this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023

219 points (98.2% liked)

News

36943 readers

2165 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

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

219

Maryland's handgun licensing law has been struck down by a federal appeals court (apnews.com)

submitted 2 years ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

165 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Wait, so you're arguing that the second amendment is designed for arming an oppressive military?

[–] Ebennz@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

No, the second amendment is designed to enable citizens to protect themselves in the event of an oppressive military.

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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).

[–] Ebennz@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

It doesn't matter if you're struggling with it or not as the supreme court has already ruled on it.

The majority arrived at this conclusion after undertaking an extensive analysis of the founding-era meaning of the words in the Second Amendment’s "prefatory clause" ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State") and "operative clause" ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed").

The majority analyzed the Second Amendment’s two clauses and concluded that the prefatory clause announces the Amendment’s purpose.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-4/ALDE_00013264/.

It ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms—unconnected with service in a militia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

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.