Scott Hughes wrote:
Please help me jdege, do you see the permitting and/or licensing laws as may be applied stictly a bureaucratic hassle for the eligible applicant.
Personally, I don't think permitting, licensing, or registration accomplish much good. Actually, I'd be prepared to argue they don't do any good.
But while I'll argue against all permits, licensing, or registration, as a matter of public policy, I won't argue against carry permits as a matter of fundamental right or constitutional law.
As to what permits, licenses, or registration I object to mildly, as being poor public policy, and what permits, licenses, or registration I object to strongly, as matters of fundamental right, I see three issues: possession, use, and carry.
Possession: I think it is a violation of fundamental principles for us to allow the government to know whether someone owns a firearm, or what firearms he owns. So I oppose registration of guns, or licensing of gun owners.
Use: I think the government has a compelling interest to regulate gun use, in some spheres. Laws forbidding discharge in populated areas, restricting the types of weapons that can be used in hunting, etc., I do not object to. I'm not opposed to requirements on how shooting ranges are designed.
I don't think it's any of the government's business whether or not you have a .50 MG. But I think it's perfectly appropriate for the government to say that there are certain places where you may not shoot it.
Carry: I do not object to, as a matter of fundamental principles, laws that require permits to carry loaded firearms in public. For the state to require a demonstration of knowledge of firearms safety and the law regarding defensive gun use I do not think unreasonable.
All of the above, of course, subject to the proviso that the licensing or permitting requirements be simple, easy, inexpensive, and most importantly, objective.
As for DC's licensing - I object to their requiring a license for ownership. But I object more to the arbitrary way in which they grant those licenses.
I am encouraged by Scalia's language regarding the requirement that DC's licensing system not be enforced "arbitrarily and capriciously". Heller may have punted on the licensing issue - decided not to fight in that area, yet. But Scalia seems to have signaled that DC's future licensing system be implemented fairly.