BALTIMORE (AP) — 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.

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.

  • SupraMario@lemmy.world
    53·
    8 months ago

    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…

    • TWeaK@lemm.eeEnglish
      52·
      8 months ago

      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.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        42·
        8 months ago

        Correct, if people are harmed. But you can shout fire in a theater, as it’s protected speech.

        • TWeaK@lemm.eeEnglish
          21·
          8 months ago

          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.

        • IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee
          11·
          8 months ago

          So then you’re saying that liberals and leftists CAN publicly call for the roundup, imprisonment, and execution of all Republicans who push fake news in online and broadcast media?

            • IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee
              11·
              8 months ago

              Liberals have stopped it. Liberals keep defending your “free speech”. You have all the rights you could possibly ask for because of liberals.

              You just chose to piss all over them.

              • AlDente@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                1·
                8 months ago

                So the liberals are stopping the liberals? That’s neat. I’m pretty close to a free-speech absolutist so you can say whatever you want around me.

    • interceder270@lemmy.world
      12·
      8 months ago

      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.