After changing the voting age from 21 to 18, you cannot take away Constitutional rights from 18 year olds. This is not a regulation, it's a ban. A regulation only lays out a process for exercising your rights. A ban infringes on your rights.
Why don't you also try to take away the college snowflakes' 1st amendment right to peaceably assemble or speak out in public and then see what happens?
Why not take away 4th amendment privacy protections and 5th amendment due process rights from 20 year olds?
Here is a simple idea that I think will curb school shootings by loner teenagers and is 100% constitutional:
2nd Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.Article I Section 8:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;Federalist #29:
Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
Here is my solution:
If instructors at the range have doubts about that teenager's mental state, they don't have to issue the certificate. That's a red flag right there. If the instructors don't have doubts and do issue the certificate, all it does is slow down the process and add a third party to the process to observe the character and state of mind of the person seeking to purchase the weapon.
To me, this is no different than flight instructors raising red flags about students who don't want to learn how to take off or land, but just fly in cruising mode. A gun proficiency instructor would similarly look for signs that someone seeking a gun is unstable and alert authorities.
I'm not saying that this is 100% perfect. I can foresee someone going "gun-range shopping" until they find an instructor who is willing to issue the certificate; at least that slows down the process and adds more people into the loop. But I do believe it is constitutional to insert this one step into the process of purchasing a firearm without it becoming a slippery slope to banning guns or building a national gun registry that could be used for door-to-door gun confiscation.
-PJ
Uh, short answer——no. Detailed answer——no. Could be me though.
Why isn’t this infringement? I don’t see that Federalist #29 covers it, and Federalist #29 isn’t in the Constitution?
Who determines what’s “proficient” so the guys who test for it can make a judgement?
What keeps someone with a certificate from buying for the gang?
Who pays for this bureaucracy?