0
1

[–] drakesdoom2 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Shall not be infringed. By the Constitution the things you can require are nothing and nada. Try committing retards to a home by the original sub 80 iq definition.

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.

0
1

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

Would it not be better to give people an incentive? Lower home insurance!?

0
1

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

I would start with gang violence since that is the majority of gun deaths. Or don't since each dead gangbanger makes the world a slightly better place.

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

[–] 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.

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.

load more comments ▼ (8 remaining)