What restrictions on gun possession and use would be permissible? Almost no one argues that 2nd Amendment rights are absolute. After all, under the 1st Amendment, the right to free speech does not protect disturbing the peace; religious freedom does not shield human sacrifice.
I'll go along with that.
...Indeed, the appeals court acknowledged that Washington might be able to justify such things as concealed-carry restrictions, registration requirements and proficiency testing.
I won't go along with that. But chances are that's exactly the interpretation we'll get--if the Court takes the case, and if they "rule" in favor of individual rights.
There are some highly respected names in Second Amendment scholarship--people with a lot more formal academic credentials and wider name recognition than I'll ever have--who are on record stating registration would not be an infringement. To back this up, they cite militia laws and practices employed in the Founding Era, where a Citizen would be required to muster with certain predefined arms and accoutrements and subject them to inspection and being recorded into the rolls.
That I have no problem with. If the sheriff puts out a general call to arms (right), I expect him to ensure
There are some highly respected names in Second Amendment scholarship--people with a lot more formal academic credentials and wider name recognition than I'll ever have--who are on record stating registration would not be an infringement. To back this up, they cite militia laws and practices employed in the Founding Era, where a Citizen would be required to muster with certain predefined arms and accoutrements and subject them to inspection and being recorded into the rolls.
That I have no problem with. If the sheriff puts out a general call to arms (right), I expect him to ensure
There are some highly respected names in Second Amendment scholarship--people with a lot more formal academic credentials and wider name recognition than I'll ever have--who are on record stating registration would not be an infringement. To back this up, they cite militia laws and practices employed in the Founding Era, where a Citizen would be required to muster with certain predefined arms and accoutrements and subject them to inspection and being recorded into the rolls.
That I have no problem with. If the sheriff puts out a general call to arms (right), I expect him to ensure those of us answering the call won't end up being a detriment. But I see nothing in early militia laws suggesting the people of that era would have considered arms not brought to muster as anybody's business, and am unaware of any widespread legal parallel for recording what people of that time kept in their homes, or bought, sold or bartered.
As always, I'm willing to be educated. That said, the historic lessons of registration ought to be brutally clear to all, and the answer based on that alone ought to be "No."
As an aside, it's nice to see these sentiments getting ink in The Los Angeles Times.
That I have no problem with. If the sheriff puts out a general call to arms (right), I expect him to ensure those of us answering the call won't end up being a detriment. But I see nothing in early militia laws suggesting the people of that era would have considered arms not brought to muster as anybody's business, and am unaware of any widespread legal parallel for recording what people of that time kept in their homes, or bought, sold or bartered.
As always, I'm willing to be educated. That said, the historic lessons of registration ought to be brutally clear to all, and the answer based on that alone ought to be "No."
As an aside, it's nice to see these sentiments getting ink in The Los Angeles Times.