0
4

[–] Seventh_Jim 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Yes, but would have to be tested by the courts. My argument would ask which other guaranteed freedoms require mandatory education to exercise.

I always like using the 3rd amendment because it highlights the absurdity of their position.

1
0

[–] tjkac 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)

I get the people saying, "Shall not be infringed." But the problem is the 2nd Amendment has been infringed already and for quite some time. That's not to say that those limitations should not be removed, I think they should. However, to answer your question in a more technically correct manner in line with current laws...No, I don't think a state requiring a class before owning a firearm would likely be found unconstitutional. It may not even be unconstitutional to require the firearm purchaser to pay for the required class. There are already laws that require background checks and mandatory waiting periods, which the purchaser has to pay for. Those are all constitutional limitations currently, so the likelihood that a class on proper handling, storage, and local discharging laws probably would pass through the courts.

0
0

[–] Bobtheviolent ago 

If the class were determined to be increasing safety and was not exclusionary or placing an undue burden on the people it might pass muster

0
2

[–] GuacBowl 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

If they want to require a free class make it apart of high school that everyone needs to take. Any barrier to entry is infringement.

0
1

[–] R34p_Th3_Wh0r1w1nd 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

If you have the money to fight it, you might win. Don't expect help from the ACLU.

0
1

[–] thelma 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

This would imply that the class must be taken before the person possesses a firearm.

Any gun class would be worthless as it would not address the gun the person ultimately purchases as all guns are different.

And what if you fail the class ? Oh, now you cannot have a gun because you are a bad test-taker ?

Really, here are the requirements for possessing a gun :

a) you are a freeman

THAT'S IT

OP should provide a link to his paper when he completes it. Its should be good for a laugh.

And OP is confused .. thinking that the government grants rights. Governments do not grant rights at all. Look at the history of the 2nd amendment LAW where many did not want it in the bill of rights as some thought that doing so would actually encourage firearm regulation which they thought the government could not do.

0
0

[–] MaxVieuxlieu ago  (edited ago)

Read the text of the amendment and determine that for yourself. There's no way to tell what the Courts would say. But if you want to reduce gun violence, how would a class help? If the logic is that fewer people will own guns, only fewer law-abiding people would, so gun violence and threats of gun violence would increase. If the logic is that people are going to learn that violence is wrong from a class they have to take in order to get a gun, well I'm not sure how effective that would be.

0
1

[–] dontforgetaboutevil 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Yeah, the right to bare arms shall not be infringed. Forcing people into a class and no it ain't free if it's tax funded, is infringement.

0
0

[–] CharlesVI ago 

How about make it part of public education so they get the class before they are 18. Solves all problems. We have a department of Education, might as well make it worth a shit.

load more comments ▼ (8 remaining)