View Single Post
Old November 1, 2010, 07:14 AM   #31
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,885
Quote:
16. Moreover, although the Ordinance requires training as a condition to gun ownership, that requirement does not bring the operation of or shooting at gun ranges within the scope of the Second Amendment. Municipal ordinances cannot alter the meaning and scope of the United States Constitution.
No, they can't, but the US Constitution can be used to invalidate municipal ordinances.

Making this a big zoning fight concedes the real argument: should training be required before exercising your right to keep arms? The answer we're hoping for is, "yes, as long as it's not too inconvenient."

Like millions of Floridians, I have unregistered guns, and the only government-required training I have ever had was for my concealed weapons permit years ago, and could hardly be called training. (We were asked to fire one round from a loaded revolver and then set it down.) If this has resulted in some problem relative to places that do require training, I have not seen it.

Requiring training infringes on the 2A right, so the question is, can that infringement meet court scrutiny? To me, millions of untrained gun owners here and across the country causing few problems indicates it should not.
publius42 is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04646 seconds with 7 queries