Good morning class, today we will turn to considering constitutional law.
This is obviously a constitutional question.
The Constitution is a social contract whereby the People gave certain powers and authority to the government. The Constitution is a limiting document upon the government. If the authority is not clearly given to the government is retained by the People.
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided that strict scrutiny shall be the standard applied in the analysis concerning possible conflicts concerning constitutionally protected fundamental right like the 2nd amendment.
To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three prongs:
First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (over-inclusive) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this 'least restrictive means' requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny
I submit that the government requirement of a skill test in order to get a concealed weapons permit fails the first test.
Not only is there no basis in fact to prove that such a test would save lives; on the contrary, the reduction in numbers of permits issued would be detrimental to society because it would cost lives. There is concrete evidence that the more concealed weapons permits issued in a community the greater the detriment to violent crime and the more lives are saved. The government would have to prove that there is a problem that they are addressing, not that there might be a problem. They would have to have clear evidence that untrained concealed weapons permit holders were harming innocent people in significant numbers as compared to trained permit holders.
What that number of innocent people shot would be? I have no idea. What if the number of innocent people shot by trained permit holders was actually greater?
Just because you want something or that something is desirable does not mean the government can constitutionally give it to you.