Md. governor signs comprehensive gun-control bill with fingerprint licensing

[alp227]

Source: AP

Gov. Martin O’Malley has signed a comprehensive gun-control measure that supporters say makes Maryland’s gun laws among the strictest in the nation.

O’Malley signed the bill on Thursday. One of the strongest provisions requires people to submit fingerprints to the state police to get a license to buy a handgun.

The measure also bans 45 types of assault weapons, but people who own them now will be able to keep them.

Gun magazines will be limited to 10 bullets.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-governor-to-sign-gun-control-measure-with-fingerprint-requirement-for-handgun-purchases/2013/05/16/5fd8493c-bdf0-11e2-b537-ab47f0325f7c_story.html

[AtheistCrusader]

1. Depending on the details of implementation

Fingerprint checks for licensing, and the license will probably be found constitutional by the courts.

Be interesting to see if the ACLU attacks this particular implementation of it.

[askeptic]

2. So a license is needed to exercise a right??

That is the antithesis of what a right is. If you don't like the Constitution, change it, but quit trying to provide a means to define the state as "granting" rights, so that every one can be justified when it is taken away. They can't grant you what is already yours.

[AtheistCrusader]

3. The only prior restraint being exercised here is verification you are not a person disqualified by

due process, from possessing a firearm.

Narrowly speaking, that is probably fully legal. The 1934 NFA registry has always survived legal challenges on those grounds for fully automatic weapons. Same for background checks for concealed weapons licenses. Why not for all firearms? You have a Right to both, per the 2nd, but that right can be regulated, and is not unlimited.

[askeptic]

8. I agree with you - but the article discusses a license

...and that is of great concern to me. I don't have an issue with the background or even a fingerprint but there should be no "license" as if the state is granting a privilege.
It is also bothersome to me that there seem to be a host of other regulations surrounding the 2nd, all different depending on the state. This just doesn't make sense to me to have the states each deciding how to "grant" your rights.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I wish just raising an issue didn't cause one to be called names or treated as if one is ignorant of the wording and the Constitution itself. The Supremes already said that the right was not conditional on being part of a militia - so that argument carries very little weight after that decision.

So not getting hammered is appreciated. Later

[Amimnoch]

5. Perhaps you should read the constitution sometime.

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

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the state," - People, especially cherry pickers, love to conveniently forget the first part. Let's break it down further:

"A Well Regulated Militia" WELL REGULATED!!!!! Do these words sink in yet??? WELL REGULATED!!! Right there, you find.. in black and white, the constitutional right of government to regulate this right!!!!!!

"Necessary to the security of a free State". So, I can see why having armed citizens in a frontier nation is necessary in the maintenance of a free state. Please, do tell.. What exact purpose does an armed citizenry provide, in the area of security of a free state in this day and age? Please, I'm dying here to actually hear an answer that provides validation of the right for dumb asses to own semi-automatic weapons with huge clips of ammo as "Necessary to the security of a free state".. Oh, and I do hope you aren't going to spout off that bullshit about needing them to protect yourself against the US government. That would be a most tragic mistake.

Last, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".. That the citizens of the US do indeed have a right to keep and bear arms is indisputable constitutionally. HOWEVER, it does NOT... AT ALL.. OR IN ANY WAY say/state/insinuate that all citizens may have any and all types of arms available to them completely and wholly. At best, it can be judicially argued that arms up to and including frontier muskets are a right... anything above and beyond that is up to the "well regulated" part of that article... or at least it should be for anyone who can actually read the fucking amendment.

[PSPS]

6. You're wasting your breath. These are gun fetishists.

[treestar]

9. It can be

The courts have found parade permits and such permissible.

[Crepuscular]

4. When I purchased my first couple

of handguns back in the 1980's, it was required that the purchaser obtain a "safety inspection" card with their thumbprint on it, obtained from the local sheriffs office. You were supposed to be able to provide the inspection card on request of law enforcement when possessing the weapon off of your property. That was in Michigan. The fingerprint requirement was later done away with and eventually the safety inspection card was abandoned, as well.

I don't have a problem with this kind of requirement for the purchase of handguns.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

10. Proud to be a Marylander!!!