JRH6856
Member
None of these things should be necessary to get a permit to either own or carry a firearm because permits should not be required for the exercise or a protected fundamental right.
The right to keep and bear arms is protected by the US Constitution, as are other enumerated such as the rights of freedom os speech, press, religion, and a host of non-enumerated rights. But all rights do not receive the same protections.
The 2nd Amendment opens with the phrase "A well regulated militia being necessary to the peace and security of a free state." In the context of the times when that was written, "well-regulated" meant well-trained. And who is the milita? In the words of George Mason, ""Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people.." So it can be argued that the 2nd Amendment itself, in protecting the right to keep and bear arms, expressed the necessity and and an expectation for those persons bearing arms to be trained in their operation and use. It is part of the responsibility each person has in exercising the right.
So, If we are going to interpret the 2nd Amendment as stating a condition necessay fo keeping and bearing arme, and apply the 2nd Amendment in toto, I have no objection to testing firarms proficiency and basic familiarity with the law as a minimum requirement for keeping and bearing arms. But as the militia is the whole of the people, these things should then be a required part of a basic public curriculum so that everyone who attends school receives them.
If, OTOH, we are going to ignore the necessity of the militia being well trained, and just hipe that each person recognizes and accepts the need as a personal responsibility, then that too is acceptable. But, we do need to better educate people on the responsibilities that are part and parcel of the exercise of any individual rights in a free society.
The right to keep and bear arms is protected by the US Constitution, as are other enumerated such as the rights of freedom os speech, press, religion, and a host of non-enumerated rights. But all rights do not receive the same protections.
The 2nd Amendment opens with the phrase "A well regulated militia being necessary to the peace and security of a free state." In the context of the times when that was written, "well-regulated" meant well-trained. And who is the milita? In the words of George Mason, ""Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people.." So it can be argued that the 2nd Amendment itself, in protecting the right to keep and bear arms, expressed the necessity and and an expectation for those persons bearing arms to be trained in their operation and use. It is part of the responsibility each person has in exercising the right.
So, If we are going to interpret the 2nd Amendment as stating a condition necessay fo keeping and bearing arme, and apply the 2nd Amendment in toto, I have no objection to testing firarms proficiency and basic familiarity with the law as a minimum requirement for keeping and bearing arms. But as the militia is the whole of the people, these things should then be a required part of a basic public curriculum so that everyone who attends school receives them.
If, OTOH, we are going to ignore the necessity of the militia being well trained, and just hipe that each person recognizes and accepts the need as a personal responsibility, then that too is acceptable. But, we do need to better educate people on the responsibilities that are part and parcel of the exercise of any individual rights in a free society.