View Single Post
Old November 15, 2011, 08:10 PM   #29
Frank Ettin
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 8,745
Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
...what public safety concern involves danger beyond what is already an inherently dangerous practice (at least, for criminals)?

Regulations that mitigate the danger like requiring training, proficiency, knowledge of force escalation (shoot, don't shoot) ought to pass muster. Certainly, inherent in the militia purpose was training, proficiency, i.e. well regulated.

But no regulation can address every public safety concern when the core of the right inherently involves the capability of lethal force.
I think that's correct. But that still seems to leave room for non-discretionary licensing/training requirements for lawfully carrying in public. And that probably also leaves some room for safe storage laws, such as found in California (e. g., criminal penalties if a child gets your loaded gun and hurts someone, unless you stored your gun securely). And there might be other sorts of regulations that courts in the future will decide reflect a constitutionally acceptable balancing of the right to keep and bear arms against governmental interest in public safety.

The real bottom line is that, as I've suggested in the past, we can't expect Heller and McDonald to herald the end of all regulation of the RKBA.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Page generated in 0.07767 seconds with 7 queries