Peruta would make a good test case, because it would allow the justices to establish that right without getting into the weeds of what restrictions on it would be reasonable. The plaintiffs do not challenge the requirements of a training course and “good moral character.” The former is unobjectionable and is required by many states with permissive “shall issue” carry policies. The latter could be applied in questionable ways–would California deny a carry permit to Bill Clinton?–but it doesn’t seem unreasonable on its face.
Oh, horseshit. WTF does hewing to some religious stricture or other have to do with your unalienable right to effective self-defense?
I’m an atheist. This alone would be enough for many of the religious to regard me as a horribly immoral character. But why should I have to bow to gods in which I don’t believe in order to bear arms, a right that, according to the Second Amendment, “shall not be infringed.”
The short answer is that I should not. A somewhat longer answer is that the state has been engaged in a complicated game for more than two hundred years to try to break the flat prohibition imposed upon it by the Second: Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed.
Wannabe tyrants, almost from the passage of the Bill of Rights, have desperately tried to interpret the extremely plain language of the Second as somehow meaning other than what it says – not because they don’t understand what it says and means, but because they hate and fear and armed citizenry capable of effectively resistiing their power, and they mean to see that such a citizenry is rendered impossible.
Liberty-haters bent on citizen disarmament have often hung their hats on a grammatically meaningles preferatory clause in the amendment in an illogical effort to claim it only guarantees the RKBA for state militias like the national guards. But ask yourself: If that preferatory clause had been left off, and the Second simply stated that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, do you honestly think the statist hoplophobes would accept that those words mean what they say?
Of course they wouldn’t. They are dishonest to the core, and want to strip guns from the hands of Americans by any means necessary.
Tyrants like these are exactly why the Framers guaranteed us the RKBA in the first place.
As for Taranto, how would he like to have to pass a “good moral character” test in order to write and publish his column? He finds restrictions on my right to keep and bear arms “reasonable on their face,” but I’m confident he would scream his head off if similar restrictions were applied to his First Amendment-guaranteed rights.