For the sake of argument, why not extend that logic to gun purchases or transfers? It stands to reason that the same requirements should apply to both firearm ownership and firearm possession. If we did it there, a license for possession becomes unnecessary.jeffrw wrote:Regarding the original question, I think it depends on the permitting process itself. In my opinion, the way we do it in Texas is constitutional. The process of obtaining a CHL is designed to ensure that (1) you're not a criminal, (2) you're not mentally unstable, (3) you're well-informed about the laws and the responsibility involved, and (4) you can safely operate a gun and shoot reasonably straight. None of those requirements seem unreasonable or unduly burdensome. You demonstrate those things, and you'll be issued a permit. And if you can't demonstrate those things, you shouldn't be carrying a gun.
I'm not really advocating that, but I'm just pointing out that the constitution allows us to both keep and bear arms. Why do additional burdens (at all) apply to one side of that and not the other? Why does the burden not apply to long guns? It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but I'm not constitutional legal scholar.