Seth wrote:Coito ergo sum wrote:Seth wrote:
That's exactly what most states require to issue a CCW.
Notably Vermont, which allows concealed carry without a permit by anyone not disbarred from possessing firearms, has one of the lower crime rates in the US.
The problem with licensing and testing to exercise a fundamental Constitutional right is, of course, that the licensing system and testing criteria can be easily manipulated for political reasons to exclude this, that or the other person for reasons having nothing to do with their qualifications and abilities. No other fundamental right requires that one get approval from the government before exercising it.
You need a license to broadcast speech on the radio -- or you're a pirate, and will land in jail. Licensure is perfectly legal for people to organize demonstrations, even though they are protected by the first amendment.
No, you don't. You USED to need a license to transmit on the public airwaves. These days "spectrum" sales of radio spectrum transfer title to that spectrum to private individuals who can use it however they wish, free of prior restraint and censorship by the government. That's why Howard Stern has a job.
Howard Stern broadcasts on Satellite.
The point still stands. It wasn't found unconstitutional to have a license, and the government still regulates who can broadcast on what stations.
Seth wrote:
The government may license radio bandwidth in order to parcel it out fairly in order to avert the "tragedy of the commons," but what it cannot do is to engage in prior restraint regulation of the CONTENT of the speech.
Right. That is what I said. So, government can license guns too, as long as they don't infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Seth wrote:
The analogy to guns is that the government may legitimately make rules about when, where and under what circumstances you may DISCHARGE a handgun lawfully, in order to provide for the public safety, but it cannot prohibit any otherwise qualified law-abiding citizen from "keeping and bearing" (possessing and carrying) such arms either in public or in private on the prior-restraint notion that they MIGHT do something bad with them.
This is so circular, it's dizzying. Look. The 2nd Amendment is not limited to regulations of "discharging" handguns. It says "A well-regulated [all of the people] being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It doesn't say "A well regulated, in terms of where and under what circumstances the gun may be discharged, militia being necessary...."
You then say "otherwise qualified law-abiding citizen..." -- making sure people are trained to use and carry the gun safely and operate/maintain it properly can be one of those qualifications. The second amendment doesn't specify the qualifications -- it says "well-regulated."
You tell me that the qualification I suggest is not permitted because the government may not prohibit otherwise qualified law abiding citizens... I'm not suggesting that otherwise qualified citizens be prohibited from anything. I'm suggesting only that they be qualified.
Seth wrote:
The Supreme Court would come into play here - take the voter ID thing. The court makes a determination as to whether the requirement constitutes an undue burden. The same can be done regarding guns. Voting taxes and quizzes were struck down as unfair and undue b
burdens. If a gun training regime is over-the-top, the courts can strike it down. There wold be the usual give and take of the political and legal process.
Yes, it can. And there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the government from implementing either a gun registration or mandatory training scheme on a nationwide basis.
That's what I said, so why are you arguing the point with me.
Seth wrote:
It's just a very, very bad idea, as demonstrated by the several instances in which state governments have used such systems to oppress and deny fundamental rights to citizens. In New Jersey, semi-automatic "assault weapon" owners were asked to register their weapons on the solemn promise that it was purely a ministerial requirement so that stolen firearms could be recovered and returned to the rightful owners, and promises were made that the list would NEVER be used for confiscations.
O.k. - you think it's a bad idea.
Seth wrote:
Less than three years later, the Governor sent out the State Police with the lists of registered "assault weapons" and those registered weapons were seized from their owners after the legislature enacted a ban.
Sounds efficient.
Seth wrote:
New York has a concealed carry permit system, and it's lawful to carry concealed in New York City if you have a city-issued permit. Problem is you can't get a permit unless you're "connected." The first way they prevent it is to mandate that the application be on a form provided BY the police department.
I thought you were an original intent guy. The "Founders" never intended that the 2d amendment apply to cities. It was originally intended to apply only to the Federal Government.
