Can DC do this? ....Is Ca next?

[Firearms4life]

One good thing that DC gets outta this is they DO get to own handguns. And i agree with the folks who mentioned training being good. Guns should be a privilege to the people who know how to use it the right way, then a right to own one.

[bulgron]

In a free society you do not have the right to "remain healthy and alive". If you do then who is responsible if you are no longer healthy? Or if you are no longer alive? The government has no responsibility or duty to protect you, unless they deny you your right to self defense. However once they do that it is now a police state and no longer a free country.

Once again. If rights are used irresponsibly, then sooner or later the great mass of society will demand those rights be eliminated. It's just human nature.

You can deny this fundamental aspect of human nature if you want, but you do so at the risk of losing the entire ballgame.

I disagree. Try reading some American history.

Where in history did anyone ever suggest that it's okay for people to keep and bear arms without knowing what the hell they were doing with them?

One of the big reasons for the 2A was to ensure that the populace was trained in the use of arms. The founders wanted us trained. The very desire for this exists in the language of the 2A itself.

Are you seriously arguing that it's okay for people to carry arms in public, with no training, no clue as to the laws on deadly force, no regard whatsoever for the safety and well-being of the people around them?

Says who? You? By what right?

What do you mean, "by what right"? I'm merely making an observation on the behavior of society in general.

I'll bet you can go to nearly any gun range in United States on almost any day and find people there who were not taught how to use firearms by their parents. Do you dispute the basic reality of our current society?

What I'd like to see is people take responsibility for themselves and their actions. It is because we as a society no longer do and everyone has turned to the government to take care of us. That's not the governments job it is your job.

This is why we have ridiculous draconian laws.

What I want to not see is some drooling idiot wandering down the street with their firearm, "accidentally" discharging the thing, shooting some kid on the sidewalk, and screwing it up for the rest of us.

Training is a good and necessary thing. I don't care how it happens, I just want it to happen.

[Runitai]

Fundamental rights cannot be taken away without due process of law. Unless you've stood trial and been found guilty by a jury, you retain ALL of your constitutional rights. States have no authority to infringe upon any rights guaranteed by the federal constitution (so says the 14th amendment).

That being said, I think a test and qualification similar to the shall-issue states' CCW application process would be a good thing for all handgun owners to go through, and I wouldn't be upset if said licensing (and providing proof of said licensing when requested to do so) was required when operating/transporting a firearm outside of private property. I also wouldn't be upset if this license had to be renewed periodically.

This would bring firearms in line with automobiles, socially speaking. Currently, you can buy a car without a license, never register it, and drive it all you want on private property, but as soon as you hit a public road, a cop can stop you and demand license and registration (and in some states proof of insurance) at any time. Fail to produce these documents, and your car might be impounded.

Similarly, you should be able to purchase a firearm to keep in your home with no registration or testing required whatsoever, but carrying one around or going hunting without a license should be prohibited. To me, this seems like a good balance of rights and safety, if such a thing exists.

Man, I don't want to think about what the DMV equivalent for firearms would be like. Could be awesome. Could be hell on earth.

[pedro_c111]

I don't have time to do your research for you, but just as a jumping off point try reading the text of the 2A. Then ask yourself what "well-regulated" means. Then ask yourself how a free state is supposed to get a "well-regulated militia" if the members of said state have no freaking idea of how to use their weapons.

See also the origins of the RKBA in ancient England, and the role the development of the longbow had in the creation of the right. It is the early desire to keep the citizenry well-practiced in the usage of the longbow from which the right to arms eventually sprung, and we see echos of that desire in the 2A.

It says "well-regulated militia" not "well-regulated people", remember "the right of the people" not "the right of well-regulated people". Totally different.

[nobody_special]

Once again, you are completely ignoring the fact that unlike all other rights and privileges, there is a very serious intersection of personal right vs. public safety here. And whether you like it or not, unless we as a community figure out a way to address that intersection, the people WILL figure out a way to strip us of our personal rights in favor of protecting their public safety.

Think of it as being in a debate. You know what arguments the other side are going to make. Now, what are you going to do to head off those arguments?

It's exactly the same argument Gura made in Heller: an enumerated Constitutional right closes certain public policy doors, regardless of politics.

There are two important aspects to fundamental rights: (1) the government cannot impede your exercise of it, and (2) you may exercise it no matter how unpopular that act may be. Neo-nazis must be allowed to obtain permits to demonstrate, but we don't repeal the 1st amendment.

And, no, taking a hard line inflexible attitude on this won't work. Hard line inflexible attitudes is one of the things that lead to Californians being largely stripped of their private right to arms, because the inflexibility lead them to a place where they were unable to defend against the public perception attacks.

California lost the RKBA because (1) it isn't in the state Constitution, and (2) there are too many clueless hypocrites in this state who hate guns but love James Bond. Most other states still have the RKBA, and many people in those states have a hard-line, inflexible attitude. So far as I know, none of them predicate the RKBA upon successful completion of a test, and most of them are less violent than California.

Compromise which consists of turning rights into privileges is a sure way to turn this country into China or Russia. I agree with the incremental approach in counterattacking, but I do not agree in capitulating the fundamental right, which is what has been proposed here.

Once again. If rights are used irresponsibly, then sooner or later the great mass of society will demand those rights be eliminated. It's just human nature.

So then it is incumbent upon experienced gun owners to organize and develop society to teach and encourage responsible gun handling. But... you can't require that someone pass a test, pay a fee, obtain a license, permit, or otherwise ask permission to exercise a right, because then it isn't a right anymore.

Simply put, what you're advocating is more gun control, which of course is really people control. But it's futile; many irresponsible people are called criminals, and we all know how difficult it is for them to get guns, right? And why should I pay the price for the irresponsible acts of other people?

Where in history did anyone ever suggest that it's okay for people to keep and bear arms without knowing what the hell they were doing with them?

That would be the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. And before you jump all over me for that... it's not "okay," it's irresponsible. But you can't arrest someone for "not knowing what the hell they're doing" unless they actually act recklessly. Either they're reckless or they're not; thoughtcrime is just a bad idea.

The 2nd amendment guarantees the right of the People to keep and bear arms; not the right of Some People who Pass the Test. Why? Because even those people who can't demonstrate competence up to some arbitrary standard still have a right to self-defense.

[FortCourageArmory]

One of the big reasons for the 2A was to ensure that the populace was trained in the use of arms. The founders wanted us trained. The very desire for this exists in the language of the 2A itself.

Read the 2nd Amendment again:

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.

The first part says that a well-regulated militia is a very desirable thing. Therefore the people shall be allowed to keep and bear arms toward this purpose. There is no testing requirement attached to the amendment, just the opening statement. The implication is that the individual will become "well-regulated", but there is no requirement for them to do so.

Attaching proficiency requirements to the exercise of an individual right is a hugely BAD idea.

[yellowfin]

The founders didn't see what kind of word twisting, sabotage, and outrightly evil intent the American public would put up with. It was supposed to be touch and die issue--any public official starts monkeying with our RKBA then we toss them out on the spot, no questions asked. That means ANY encroachment, let alone all the ridiculous nonsense that's here in CA or any of these talks of more. None of this "political reality" tolerant crap--you dislike RKBA then you find another job that day, period. We just haven't enforced the intent of the Constitution in over 70 years so we're not used to saying no and meaning no and having a stick on the end of it.

[Glock22Fan]

What I want to not see is some drooling idiot wandering down the street with their firearm, "accidentally" discharging the thing, shooting some kid on the sidewalk, and screwing it up for the rest of us.

Do you believe that this is common place in those states without mandatory training?

[grammaton76]

And what would happen if a new shooter couldn't get their rounds on paper? They can't take possession of their gun? That's a denial of the RKBA. This is what you call due process?

Where exactly was it said that the only way you can ever practice with a gun is if you own one? Because that's exactly where you seem to be going with this. Now I, for instance, rented over 20 handguns and several rifles before I settled on my first gun. I'd had zero experience with real guns from my parents, other than BB guns. I'm pretty sure I had most of my rounds on paper at the end of my first rental session.

Next up, others have observed that following the vehicle model (i.e. do whatever you want on private property) would be a logical exemption here, and this would be more of an armed in public thing. See below for that before you start going on about absolutes, we already are completely infringed upon by your definition and this wouldn't diminish anything from where we already are.

Once again (and I'm shocked that I have to explain this to distinguished members of this board): if you have to pass a test, pay a tax or fee, obtain a license or permit, or otherwise ask the government for permission to do something, then that is not a right. It is a privilege.

At present, the way things are, it is already is a privilege and not a right by your definition. Your right to guns can be removed promptly and just about permanently without trial by jury (via TRO, including made-up BS, a DV issue where the cops are convinced there was one but both of you are insisting otherwise, etc).

And consider further that, in order to purchase a handgun, you already have to get an HSC in California. Again, we're already in privilege territory in CA.

Edited to add: there are plenty of other ways to abuse a "rounds on paper" test. The easiest is to tweak the ammunition; maybe even substitute blanks.

Ok, now you're getting into territory which would require malice on the part of the test administrator. Note that at no point was a state agency proposed as the test administration source - but an FFL. If there'd be cheating on either side, it'd be in favor of passing folks in order to get more customers. While the points below are possible, the points above are thoroughly reaching.

Of course, the government will define the test, and as such they could always redefine it to be arbitrarily difficult (small paper, long range, scoring etc.). As long as a test is required, it can be abused in order to deny people their rights. The slippery slope argument applies, in that the test would likely become more difficult with time, and perhaps other "rights" could eventually require a test as well.

Yes, that could happen. Hasn't happened with vehicles, but then again no one really wants to ban cars.

[bulgron]

Yes, that could happen. Hasn't happened with vehicles, but then again no one really wants to ban cars.

Yet. See, for example, the current hysteria on global warming.

[nobody_special]

Where exactly was it said that the only way you can ever practice with a gun is if you own one? Because that's exactly where you seem to be going with this.

That's not exactly where I'm going; my point is that preconditions to exercise a right can easily and effectively be used to deny that right.

At present, the way things are, it is already is a privilege and not a right by your definition.

Absolutely! Especially in California.

I'm not new to this state, but I recently moved here after spending a few years in a "free" state, which is where I started shooting. I never had to get an HSC, register a gun, pay outrageous fees to the state upon taking possession, or suffered a waiting period. I could openly carry just about anywhere, or get a CC permit. California is completely different of course.

Heller should change all that. My enthusiastic arguments here serve a purpose; I believe it is very important that the 2nd amendment be given equal footing with other enumerated rights.

[nobody_special]

Next up, others have observed that following the vehicle model (i.e. do whatever you want on private property) would be a logical exemption here, and this would be more of an armed in public thing. See below for that before you start going on about absolutes, we already are completely infringed upon by your definition and this wouldn't diminish anything from where we already are.

I wanted to address this separately. I believe the vehicle analogy is flawed.

First, there is no enumerated right to drive. I believe there is an implicit common-law right to travel, and I further believe that right has been systematically infringed upon over the past century, much like the RKBA.

Second, the right to bear arms historically was not restricted to private property. Other enumerated rights are similarly unrestricted; as I have argued in other threads, a permit may be required AFAIK only insofar as one is exclusively taking or using public property, thereby denying the use of that property to others. That's reasonable because a parade or protest will block a street or sidewalk, and that blockage denies others the right to use that avenue. But the 1st amendment does protect public speech; I can stand on a street corner and shout my message so long as I don't block traffic.

Let's look at the right of the press, for example. The 1st amendment doesn't protect your right to set up a giant printing press in a public park (denying that space to the public). But the 1st amendment protects the right to distribute pamphlets, and I doubt a court would allow a permit to be required if someone were printing and distributing pamphlets in a park using a small portable printer.

I agree that the RKBA is essentially completely infringed in California. But Heller points at things to come, and with a decision coming in Nordyke, I think it's important to reflect upon what enumerated rights mean. Once incorporation happens, we should not accept less.

[Runitai]

I wanted to address this separately. I believe the vehicle analogy is flawed.

First, there is no enumerated right to drive. I believe there is an implicit common-law right to travel, and I further believe that right has been systematically infringed upon over the past century, much like the RKBA. ...

Agreed completely, but this kind of idealism, although legally well founded, isn't politically palpable currently. Of course, the ideal is to have the RKBA respected as fully as free speech, but we've got a long way to go before we get there. Sudden, drastic change is frightening and dangerous. The vehicle analogy is merely a step in the right direction.

BTW: Living in San Francisco and owning a car, it's clear that the local government here doesn't want people to drive, either, but that's a topic for another forum.

[nobody_special]

Agreed completely, but this kind of idealism, although legally well founded, isn't politically palpable currently. Of course, the ideal is to have the RKBA respected as fully as free speech, but we've got a long way to go before we get there. Sudden, drastic change is frightening and dangerous.

Again, I agree with a "take it slow" approach; but in incrementally attacking existing restrictions, we should be very careful to not compromise in such a way that will forfeit important aspects of the right later.

[CapS]

Remember that the Constitution did not establish any right. As someone's sig here points out, the Constitution is a document which limits the power of government.

The Bill of Rights was added to that document by those men who feared exactly what has come to pass: that government would arrogate to itself more and more power.

The idea that government is entitled to restrain any of us in any way from a free exercise of these rights (and others not enumerated) is repugnant and insidious.

/Cap