A federal appeals court has struck down a Maryland law requiring people to obtain a special license before purchasing a handgun. Judges on the 4th U.S.

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.

  • TWeaK@lemm.eeEnglish
    21·
    1 year 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.

      • interceder270@lemmy.world
        1·
        1 year ago

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

        Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

        The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action”.

        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.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          11·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • interceder270@lemmy.world
            11·
            1 year ago

            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.