{"id":31302,"date":"2024-08-23T20:11:00","date_gmt":"2024-08-24T01:11:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ustower.net\/?p=31302"},"modified":"2024-08-23T22:15:26","modified_gmt":"2024-08-24T03:15:26","slug":"federal-appeals-court-upholds-marylands-handgun-licensing-requirements","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ustower.net\/?p=31302","title":{"rendered":"Federal appeals court upholds Maryland’s handgun licensing requirements"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

BALTIMORE — A federal appeals court on Friday upheld Maryland\u2019s handgun licensing requirements, rejecting an argument from gun-rights activists that the law violated the Second Amendment by making it too difficult for people to obtain guns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A majority of judges<\/a> from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, affirmed a district court judge’s ruling in favor of the state of Maryland.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The majority rejected plaintiffs\u2019 argument that the state\u2019s handgun qualification statute tramples on applicants\u2019 Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. The law requires most Maryland residents to obtain a handgun qualification license before purchasing a handgun.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Senior Judge Barbara Milano Keenan wrote Friday\u2019s majority opinion, joined by nine other judges. Five judges adopted opinions concurring with the majority\u2019s decision. Two judges joined in a dissenting opinion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe handgun license requirement is nevertheless constitutional because it is consistent with the principles underlying our Nation\u2019s historical tradition of firearm regulation,\u201d Judge Allison Jones Rushing wrote in a concurring opinion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In his dissenting opinion, Judge Julius Richardson said the state of Maryland \u201chas not shown that history and tradition justify its handgun licensing requirement.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI can only hope that in future cases we will reverse course and assess firearm regulations against history and tradition,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court\u2019s full roster of judges agreed to hear the case after a three-judge panel ruled 2-1 last year<\/a> that the requirements, which include submitting fingerprints for a background check and taking a four-hour firearms safety course, were unconstitutional.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In their split ruling in November, the 4th Circuit panel said it considered the case in light of a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision<\/a> that \u201ceffected a sea change in Second Amendment law.\u201d That 6-3 decision signified a major expansion of gun rights following a series of mass shootings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With its conservative justices in the majority and liberals in dissent, the Supreme Court struck down a New York law and said Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. It also required gun policies to fall in line with the country\u2019s \u201chistorical tradition of firearm regulation.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The underlying lawsuit in the Maryland case was filed in 2016 as a challenge to a state law requiring people to obtain a special license before purchasing a handgun. The plaintiffs included the Maryland Shall Issue advocacy group and licensed gun dealer Atlantic Guns Inc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mark Pennak, president of Maryland Shall Issue, said the plaintiffs believe Friday\u2019s ruling runs afoul of Supreme Court precedent and is \u201cplainly wrong as a matter of common sense.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe majority opinion is, in the words of the dissent, \u2018baseless,\u2019\u201d he said, adding that a petition for the Supreme Court to review the decision \u201cpractically writes itself.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maryland’s law passed in 2013 in the aftermath of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. It laid out requirements for would-be gun purchasers: completing four hours of safety training, submitting fingerprints and passing a background check, being 21 and residing in Maryland.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gun-rights groups argued that the 2013 law made obtaining a handgun an overly expensive and arduous process. Before that law passed, people had to complete a more limited training and pass a background check. However, supporters of the more stringent requirements said they were a common-sense tool to keep guns out of the wrong hands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court heard arguments for the case in March. It\u2019s one of two cases on gun rights out of Maryland that the federal appeals court took up around the same time. The other is a challenge to the state\u2019s assault weapons ban.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown said the ruling represents \u201ca great day for Maryland and for common-sense gun safety.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe must ensure guns stay out of the hands of those who are not allowed, under our laws, to carry them,\u201d Brown said in a statement. \u201cThe application for a gun license and the required training and background check, are all critical safety checks.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

abcnews<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

BALTIMORE — A federal appeals court on Friday upheld Maryland\u2019s handgun licensing requirements, rejecting an argument from gun-rights activists that the law violated the Second Amendment by making it too difficult for people to obtain guns. A majority of judges from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, affirmed a district court judge’s ruling in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":31303,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[1723,1702],"class_list":["post-31302","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-politics","tag-court","tag-federal"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ustower.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31302","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ustower.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ustower.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ustower.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ustower.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=31302"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/ustower.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31302\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":31304,"href":"https:\/\/ustower.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31302\/revisions\/31304"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ustower.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/31303"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ustower.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=31302"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ustower.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=31302"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ustower.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=31302"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}