If a felon is too dangerous to allow to legally own a gun which can easily be illegally obtained, then they are too dangerous to be released among the general public.
As for the mentally ill, punishing the mentally ill by removing rights will only lead to them not seeking help. Since we assume people mentally competent til proven otherwise and since they will avoid seeking help, this results in an overall increase in danger.
Also, if a poll fee is wrong because it limits a right, why isn't the same true for other fees such as that needed to register a gun?
I'd like to see some sort of "Prove that you can shoot what you're aiming at, store a firearm safely, and do basic maintenance" vetting process for guns. Right now it's about where you live, what country were you born in, have you ever been arrested... all things that have nothing to do with the physics and safety of firearms.
I mean, we already do this with cars.
(Incidentally, this would disqualify me - I can't hit the skybox in Team Fortress 2, never mind real weapons)
Alas, such "prove basic competence" requirements have been repeatedly abused - much akin to the unwarranted delay which this thread is about - to inflict unwarranted delays and other hurdles to gun ownership.
Guns are not complex. Basic operations & maintenance can be taught in a few minutes by the seller. There are just 4 basic safety rules. Pull the trigger, and whatever it's pointing at is destroyed - that's kinda the whole point of a gun. Having hundreds of hours of training, I assure you basic vetting should take no more than 30 minutes. Alas, vetting is often twisted into weeks of delays, hours of obligatory boredom, tens or hundreds of dollars in direct (and more indirect) costs, and rarely actual shooting - all designed to delay exercise of that right. This is quite a rights problem when someone NEEDS one immediately, say to prepare for a "I'm gonna kill you tonight bitch" stalker.
BTW: methinks "driving" would be an enumerated right had the Founding Fathers ever conceived of the notion of making vehicular travel a "licensed privilege". The loudest argument against the Bill Of Rights was precisely that rights not enumerated would be construed as not being rights; prime example: driving.
I guess, but "hit this target", "demonstrate operating a safety, and bring a picture of your gun safe", or "show us how you clean your gun" are things that can be done quickly and can be measured objectively - it wouldn't be like those racist literacy tests for voting.
You'd still get the occasional crazy or evil person jumping through it, but at least you'd avoid idiots who shoot themselves in the nuts because they walk around with a loaded pistol carried in the seam of their trousers.
>it wouldn't be like those racist literacy tests for voting.
A modern day test for voting would also be different, but they are still used as justification to ban any such test. As long as the potential to abuse a test/restriction is reason to ban it, all restrictions should be banned equally.
Last I checked driving is a right. The whole licenses bit is just for driving on public roads (granted, that is the reason 99% driving occurs). It is the difference between owning a gun and taking that gun wherever I want.
If a felon is too dangerous to allow to legally own a gun which can easily be illegally obtained, then they are too dangerous to be released among the general public.
As for the mentally ill, punishing the mentally ill by removing rights will only lead to them not seeking help. Since we assume people mentally competent til proven otherwise and since they will avoid seeking help, this results in an overall increase in danger.
Also, if a poll fee is wrong because it limits a right, why isn't the same true for other fees such as that needed to register a gun?