How many in 16 years? Is it enough to prohibit 25 million people from exercising their 2A rights?
Originally Posted by Hopyard
My concern is that what you're proposing is a weak irrational basis for prohibiting 25 million people from exercising their most fundamental right. In the 7th Circuit Illinois case, the judges made that point. The data shows that prohibiting guns doesn't further a government interest at all. The court found that the state's argument, a mere "view" to prevent crime, doesn't even live up to a rational basis standard. In your argument, you admit you don't know what impact the mandated training is having. You admit you have no tangible and rational basis for mandating the training. It just makes you feel good. Even if you had a rational basis, the Heller case has held that this isn't enough to deny even one person their 2A rights.
My concern with your viewpoint is that we don't know if these rates would be much higher without the training. Certainly without the training I know I would not have known about the 51 and the 30.06 signs. Just learning that was important and justifies some level of education about our laws before one carries concealed.
Let's be honest. The scheme of onerous, expensive, and time consuming requirements, including mandated training, serves only two purposes. One, the main purpose is to prohibit citizens from exercising their 2A rights. That's what 46.02 does on it's face. Possession is prohibited, and the legislature clearly intends on continuing with this 150 year tradition. Two, the intent was to appease a small minority of the most vocal citizens that want to prohibit the government from overstepping it's constitutional authority. This doesn't have anything to do with training. The government interest is to prohibit the public from exercising their 2A rights. My concern is that you and so many other gun owners support them in doing that.
So in other words, you have no rational basis to defend denying 25Million the palladium of all fundamental rights based upon training?
So it is hard to sort out if we benefit in comparison to say, WA, or PA,neither of which has a training requirement. That is I think a real and open question.
Let's float another trial judicial balloon. "Chief Justice, yes, Texas requires no training for citizens who may choose to carry AR-15s or semi-auto 12Ga shotguns. The training is only required for handguns because ..... because..... err..... aaaah....because handguns are complicated ... or something."
Now to the range test--- The number and variety of pistol designs and the relative complexity of them one to another almost
demands a range test; and maybe more-- demonstrated knowledge of your own weapon's controls. Pistols especially are not
mechanically simple as knives are. Since the main purpose of pistol ownership is self defense, its a pretty good idea
to make sure those who would carry for that purpose don't drop their mag when they think they are releasing a thumb safety.
Or frankly, making certain that they even know they need to rack the slide to fire the thing.
And because it's annoying, expensive, time consuming, and even admittedly comedic, lots of folks don't renew their CHL, which again, is the primary intent.
All of that said, doing it for the third time recently was a bit annoying. The range test for someone like myself who
likes to get in there and shoot now and again, is almost comedic. But, it does demonstrate that I can still follow
instructions and if at my advanced age I were senile and not fully competent to carry, at least someone would notice.