- Joined
- Oct 27, 2005
- Messages
- 33,704
- Reaction score
- 21,742
They probably will, but they shouldn’t. The waiting period and gun training in particular seem perfectly constitutional. KS and AK are permitless states already require firearms training.
Considering the whole purpose of the amendment was to have a well-regulated militia composed of the body of the citizenry, requiring training would seem to be quite in line with what the amendment states.
It’s not an infringement of the right to bear arms to require training in bearing arms. That’s silly. Likewise, a 10 day waiting period doesn’t pose any substantial burden on the right that I can see, aside from maybe an instance where someone believed their life/safety was in danger. Even under our current SCOTUS’s…um…re-imagining of the 2A, I don’t really see how those things could be unconstitutional.
Based on the precedents that they themselves created, I could see their reasoning for striking down the assault weapons ban. I don’t agree with them, but I can see it.
The scotus will strike this down and the left will whine and cry about it. It is unconstitutional. As for the requirement of training and a waiting period, maybe, maybe not. Did the militia have to go through training? Not likely. They were handed a gun and said point and shoot. While I think it is a good idea to get training before handling a firearm, there is nothing about requiring it.