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

News

25524 readers
4862 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 right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


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.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


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
[–] RaoulDook 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And just like with 1A rights we have laws that limit those effects of 2A rights, just as it should be. Just as you can't go around inciting panic with your words, you can't legally brandish a firearm in public to incite panic. ETC.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The difference being shouting "FIRE" in a theatre only remotely might kill people, while pulling a gun will much more likely lead to death. Also, the laws against shouting "FIRE" have proven far more effective than anything with guns.

You cannot compare the 2nd Amendment with any other law. It doesn't have any rational justification behind it.

[–] SupraMario 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] SupraMario 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] interceder270 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 0 points 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.

[–] interceder270 -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] SupraMario 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes you can, that was the whole damn point of bringing it up...

[–] interceder270 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] SupraMario 0 points 1 year ago

That's your rebuttal??? Lol

[–] interceder270 1 points 1 year ago

Why are you pulling a gun?