read the book...you still make the current arguments on current legal interpretations that are pretty unstable historically. Regardless, The 2nd does not state that someone has to be adjudicated in any particular way!
Again, it would be possible to create a license that would work, and a license is the most obvious way to screen the dangerous from the less dangerous.
No one is suggesting arbitrary inspections (how many times do I have to say it!!). It might be a simple signed statement that you have secured your weapon. Again, if you lied you might be subject to penalties. It's possible that obtaining required insurance might be subject to inspection or your rate would be much higher!
You exaggerate again. I never suggested an inspection of a person't entire life!! When you get a driver's license, you might take a vision test. There's no MD there, no diagnosis, and no consequence if you fail except you don't get the license until you can see.
If I have a simple screening device or interview, and you report you are depressed, angry, under restraining order, etc., etc. then you don't get the license until you get a clearance. No one cares what your diagnosis is because that's between you and your psychologist, probation officer, etc. This happens all the time when a police officer holds a person because they appear to be a danger to themselves or others. What happens later depends on evaluations, court hearings, etc.
I believe that would catch a majority of obviously dangerous people without medical records, in depth diagnosis, beliefs, etc. Possibly the screening would be part of a required training course. Would it catch everyone? NO. Would it help a lot. YES! Would the screening deny a right? NO. Would it cause the person to get clearance from a court or agency that could deny that right? YES.
People also have a right to be safe so they aren't slaughtered in movie theaters, on the roadways, in schools, and walking from the convenience store! The 2nd doesn't override all other rights either. Don't take things to extreme and it's not problem and perfectly legal.
I don't believe the constitution says it's ok for children, emotionally unstable, and criminals to easily possess guns. Chances are they aren't a well-constituted militia anyway! All we're doing here is finding the mechanism to quickly and reasonably screen the obviously dangerous from the superficially safe.
I still think a license process is the way to achieve this legally. An angry, racist asshole who stated, "I'm gonna kill everyone who isn't white with this gun." might be denied a license or at least lead to a hearing before getting one; but that's not the primary person a license would prevent from easy access to guns. More likely, it would be undiagnosed or untreated emotionally ill people, impulsive teenagers, temporarily angry spouses, or criminals who were avoiding background checks at the point of sale.
= new reply since forum marked as read