Another senseless death and an idea whose time has come.

[branford]

17. Sigh.

You background is in mental health, mine is in law. I've been a practicing trial attorney in NYC for 17 years and worked at the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, before I became an attorney. I'm quite comfortable with my very basic and entirely uncontroversial analysis of current law. To the extent any of your suggestions may be lawful, you still also need popular support to make them the law.

A license requirement cannot mandate the waiver of or obviate Constitutional and other legal protections. A "license" is not some magic method to impose any regulation or requirement that you believe is prudent or warranted. Additionally, simply because some restrictions are currently legal, doesn't mean that a little more of the same type of restriction will still remain legal. A universal background check to confirm you're not a felon is undoubtedly acceptable (if not always politically popular for private transactions), but that does not necessarily entitle the government to then inquire or inspect other aspects of a person's life, including certain medical records, employers, friends, family, beliefs, living situation, etc.

Chicago and Washington, D.C. tried to manipulate the license requirement by including a number of your suggestions. These initial laws were mostly held to be unduly restrictive, burdensome, expensive and punitive and unconstitutional. As a result, the courts not only threw out virtually all of the initial license provisions in both cities, but the taxpayers had to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to the Second Amendment Foundation and other plaintiffs. This money will be used by these organizations to fight for less restrictive firearm laws.

For instance, an individual cannot be required to permit arbitrary inspections of their home for safe storage (4A) in order to enjoy his right to own and carry a firearm (2A). More importantly, you clearly want to prevent anyone from carrying an operable firearm, whether open, concealed or anything else. Even the very liberal 9th Circuit rejected such a position.

As for mental illness, it's already illegal to possess a gun if you have been duly adjudicated as a danger to yourself and others, subject, of course, to appeals and other protections. Under your proposals, due process is upended. No one has to prove they are suited to exercise a right. The government needs to a meet a VERY high bar before denying someone Constitutional rights. Moreover, how exactly do you define terms like "personal stability" that satisfies Constitutional scrutiny. Only court of law, not a psychiatrist or psychologist, may be able to curtail a right. I don't even know how you can justify your earlier suggestion that you need recommendations from family, friends and your employer in order to exercise your Second Amendment Rights

Even angry, racist assholes have Second Amendment rights. In fact, denying someone a firearm for such reasons or anything similar would actually be a violation of both their First and Second Amendment rights.