JFerio Wrote:Considering how much money the NRA has, they could subsidize any "prohibitively expensive" training...Quote:I think the main problem with the "need to have a suitable purpose" thing is that it would be either hilariously abusable, or hideously abusable. Here's the two ways I can see it going...This would be the main sticking point with such, yes, and I'm pretty sure would be the key weakness that the NRA would use to try to torpedo the whole idea.
-If what they say matches the approved list, the requirement is satisfied. The contents of this list will become known before well before the law goes into effect, and people will say the correct things regardless.
-If the issuing authority likes what they say, the requirement is satisfied. The system will be rife with corruption and nepotism, since this basically amounts to 'if I feel like it'. See as an example California, where "make a big donation to the sheriff's reelection fund" is often cited as an effective way to get a concealed carry permit.
If we want a system that won't be massively broken, the criteria need to be objective. Proper storage in theory could be, but I'm not entirely sure I trust regulators to get that one right. Training, on the other hand, gets no arguments from me, as long as the requirement is feasible. I haven't heard about anyplace actually trying to use prohibitively expensive training requirements to create a de facto ban, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone tried it.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012