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

News

37090 readers
1080 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
[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

One of these things is guaranteed in the constitution and one isn't.

[–] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Sure, but that’s a different claim than the one you made.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's really not. Firearms are allowed by the constitution and therefore only minimal restrictions are allowed. Fingerprints and permits are far from minimal, and background checks are already a federal requirement. The fact it's hard to be a pilot isn't really relevant.

[–] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I was not the one to claim that “That's basically the requirements in my state for a cpl”. If it isn’t really relevant, I’m not sure why you brought it up.

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

Then join the National Guard, local police force, or military. Because when that was written that's what the Militia was for. There is no town militia waiting to get called out anymore which means it should be defunct. Instead we ignore half the dang thing and pretend we're all the militia when in reality if Canada invaded tomorrow the Army would be pleading with civilians to get out of the way, not recruiting meal team six.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No where dies it say militia members only.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

See there you go. Missing half the dang Amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You cannot argue an uninfringed right to personal ownership without also arguing that we need universal conscription and continuing training for all able bodied adults. And if you can't fulfill that then you don't get guns.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

And the right is explicitly granted to the people, a well regulated militia is irrelevant to the existence of the right. Now you could argue the first phrase grants the right to conscription to the government I suppose, but no one is really making that argument. The right is explicitly given to the people, not people that are conscripted or subject to it, the constitution and amendments are very good about being explicit when they are limiting the scope of a power or right to a subgroup and that isn't the case here.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The People. That's not individually. It's a group reference by definition. So if 100,000 people qualify for the well regulated militia then the right is fulfilled.

It certainly doesn't confer an individual right to carry firearms 24/7 and use them on your fellow citizens. The reason it mentions a militia is because we didn't have a standing army. The minute men were supposed to be our defense. But that doesn't mean every person was armed every moment or even that everyone stored guns at home. In towns it was common to require storage in an armory because they understood why they were there and you'd generally have plenty of warning before Canadian troops reached your town.

The expansion of gun carry and ownership is nothing but ideology run amok, fueled by industry lobbyists.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Congress was given the power to raise armies, it's also not true that militias were meant to fill that role. Again the right is not granted to militia members, it granted to the people, which means everyone. Do you believe only 100k people have the right to petition government, peacefully assembly, and be protected from warrantless search and seizure? You can't just magically decide it means something different for arms.

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

Sure you can. Because there's no similar qualifying statement in the first and fourth amendment. You keep trying to ignore everything but "the people" and the fact that's a group reference, not an individual reference.

The entire "originalist" argument is based on bad faith revisionist history and semantics.