General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: If it's about guns, cool. If it's about people, count me out. [View all]cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)I wasn't really immagining what the test would be. Whatever is was, I think it would be impermissible if someone could fail it with the result that they can't have a gun.
The effects of Heller, however, have not been fully determined in subsequent decisions so we can't know.
I don't know what anyone considers a "reasonable" abridgement of a personal constitutional right these days, but if I was on the bench and had to follow Heller as precedent I would strike down anything that would prevent a law abiding citizen from owning a gun entirely, rather than merely hassling them.
The government authority to hassle people for exercising their rights seems to be well established, as long as they get the right in some form... jump through enough hoops. That's why I think any "no gun for you" would get struck down.
Maybe you'd have to retake the class (which must be entirely free, IMO) up to three times, and after the third fail of the test you'd get a gun anyway.