Mother, may I?

Over on The High Road, a thread was started asking the question: “Should we have personal interviews, references, training, etc, for gun licenses?” That is a good question. It was prompted by this staement on yet another thread:

“But I want live fire, and an accuracy minimum, and a knowledge of self defense laws and castle doctrine in your home state. I want personal interviews, references, fingerprints, background checks, firearms seized from men who have protective orders issued against them.”

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 of a protected fundamental right.

As human beings, we all have the same natural fundamental rights. All rights are subject to restriction or even prohibition by government, but as US Citizens, we have a privilege of having some of those rights protected from government infringement or regulation. The rights to keep and bear arms are protected by the US Constitution, as are other enumerated rights such as the rights of freedom of speech, press, religion, etc., and a host of other 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 first, the expectation of the existance of a militia which carried by default, the expectation that each person would keep arms in their himr for personal use, and the necessity and and expectation for those persons bearing arms (the militia) to be trained in their operation and use. It is part of the responsibility each person has in exercising the right to bear arms in public.

The right of a person to keep arms in their own home or on their own property should not be open to question, much less restriction. The right to bear arms in public, is perhaps another matter, as the bearing of arms is a militia function. On the other hand, is a person bearing arms for his one use in self-defense, performing a militia function? Perhaps not.

If we are going to interpret the 2nd Amendment as stating a condition necessary for 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 the bearing of arms. But as the militia is the whole of the people, these things should then be a required part of the basic curriculum so that everyone who attends school receives the training.

If, on the other hand, we are going to ignore the necessity of training for personal use, or the necessity of the militia being well trained, and just hope that each person recognizes and accepts the need to be trained to minimum degree of proficiency as a personal responsibility, then that too is acceptable. But, in that case, 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.

unfortunately, the trend over the past 100+ years has been to relieve individuals of personal responsibility for decisions in many areas of their lives in favor of government making those decisions for them in the form of rules and regulations...and restrictions of fundamental rights.  There is little if any benefit to be gained from this and much to loose. Indeed, much has already been lost.