Infringement is excessive burden intended as a backdoor ban. This is not that. That would be like saying that getting your car inspected is an infringement on driving, which it's not (and yes, I know driving is not a constitutional right).Still, the car inspection is proving that the vehicle is safe to operate.
I don’t see that Federalist #29 covers it
Federalist #29 says "people at large... properly armed." I take this to mean armed with the ability to use it. Improperly armed would be having an arm that you don't know how to use. Federalist #29 says "see that this be not neglected." I take this to mean demonstrating the proper arms. Federalist #29 says "assemble them once or twice." I take this to mean proper arms are demonstrated periodically. This can be simplified into a person demonstrating proficiency with a weapon in front of an expert, and renewing it at some future date.
Federalist #29 goes on to say:
if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of armsI take this to mean that the prior statements of the people being properly armed and proficiency demonstrated supports the above expectation that the people would be equal to the standing army in the use of those arms. The Framers would be confident of that assertion because they expected the people at large to be properly armed and observed to prevent neglect.
Federalist #29 isn’t in the Constitution
True, but it's what SCOTUS looks to for original intent. Why not align with it to make their job easier?
Who determines what’s “proficient” so the guys who test for it can make a judgement?
Whatever requirements must be met to own and safely operate a gun shooting range would be acceptable to me to qualify that person to issue proficiency certificates for the guns they sell.
To rephrase your question, what qualifies a mechanic to issue an inspection certificate to renew the registration on your automobile? To me, if the state is satisfied with the qualifications to own and operate a shooting range that sells guns, that person is also qualified to issue a proficiency certificate. It's also similar to getting an amateur radio license, the government accepts other amateur radio license holders as proctors for people taking the license tests.
What keeps someone with a certificate from buying for the gang?
Nothing, except straw purchase laws. The point is to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I'm going for an 80% solution, and I think this is one.
Who pays for this bureaucracy?
Probably a small fee for obtaining the proficiency certificate, just like the small fee for inspecting the car separate from the registration fee. The certificate is reusable for multiple purchases of the same type of weapon. In my state, when I take my car in to get inspected, the mechanic looks at my auto insurance card and enters into the inspection system that I have insurance. I don't see it as a burden to show a proficiency certificate to a gun store seller and have them check a box on the purchase order that the buyer has a proficiency certificate.
The regulations would make it a crime to sell a gun without a proficiency certificate, making the seller liable to loss of their business, just like how bars can lose their liquor licenses if they sell alcohol to minors.
The parallels to other regulations are there, the extra burden on the buyer is not excessive, government would not be put in the middle as an obstruction, and all it would do is slow down the process for the youngest or first-time gun buyers until they obtain a proficiency certificate that they can reuse for additional gun purchases.
This is intended to stop the impulsive first-time gun buyer from walking into a sporting goods store to buy rifles and then go to a school to shoot it up. This person would now have to first go to a shooting range, meet the people there, rent a gun, shoot it once or twice, and then get a proficiency certificate before going to the big store to get the rifle. That's all it's intended to do, and it would create a paper trail to help answer the question about who knew about the kid, and were any red flags observed?
That's it... not perfect, but good enough.
-PJ
Seems to me a lot of people on this forum would view all that as infringement, but come to think of it a lot don’t think deeply about the meaning of infringement any more than they think deeply about the meaning of “the right of the people to keep and bear arm”.
I’ll credit you with thinking rather than giving a knee jerk response.
Again, nope. But, just some of us.
Start with a proficiency test (for a nominal fee, of course) in order to get a voter ID card. Make it renewable every for 2 years. Make people show it in order to exercise a Constitutional right.
See how that flies.