Another senseless death and an idea whose time has come.

[Sancho]

22. I just mentioned the one book because it's convenient...I can give you a bibliography if you like..

and that book is not making an argument for a license. Just an FYI..The Second Amendment: A Biography

"By the president of the prestigious Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, the life story of the most controversial, volatile, misunderstood provision of the Bill of Rights.

At a time of renewed debate over guns in America, what does the Second Amendment mean? This book looks at history to provide some surprising, illuminating answers.

The Amendment was written to calm public fear that the new national government would crush the state militias made up of all (white) adult men—who were required to own a gun to serve. Waldman recounts the raucous public debate that has surrounded the amendment from its inception to the present. As the country spread to the Western frontier, violence spread too. But through it all, gun control was abundant. In the 20th century, with Prohibition and gangsterism, the first federal control laws were passed. In all four separate times the Supreme Court ruled against a constitutional right to own a gun.

The present debate picked up in the 1970s—part of a backlash to the liberal 1960s and a resurgence of libertarianism. A newly radicalized NRA entered the campaign to oppose gun control and elevate the status of an obscure constitutional provision. In 2008, in a case that reached the Court after a focused drive by conservative lawyers, the US Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Constitution protects an individual right to gun ownership. Famous for his theory of “originalism,” Justice Antonin Scalia twisted it in this instance to base his argument on contemporary conditions.

In The Second Amendment: A Biography, Michael Waldman shows that our view of the amendment is set, at each stage, not by a pristine constitutional text, but by the push and pull, the rough and tumble of political advocacy and public agitation."

As I stated, I remember when the public was indifferent or opposed to any number of currently accepted laws and changes in the law. So far, very few people (including many of the less radical gun owners) would oppose a license process. You realize of course that the number of people in the US who own guns is consistently going down, while that subset own more and more guns per person. Demographically, it's often a white, male profile that is very Republican. Just like with MADD, medical marijuana, gay marriage, etc. IF there is an acceptable process (in this case a license) that the majority would rally around, you might see enough political energy to see a change. We all know that the well-funded NRA will go after any small attempt to rein them in, so any legal change would have to have local support as Waldman describes.

My license idea would probably test any number of challenges - many have very few court rulings that apply right now like some insurance requirements or exactly what a pre-screening would include or what firearm security is appropriate. I only mentioned the quarantine because it's a current issue of restricting a person's rights to protect others - and the courts appropriately weigh the facts to decided in an order is in force. Even Scalia said, "I'm not crazy." when quizzed about no limits to the 2nd Amendment, and he's as off the wall as one can get. We know that the NRA will fight for anything except the wild west. I think we disagree because I don't accept that "nothing can be done" - and I see a way to get there. I've been part of the "gun community" long enough to see that many don't think the radicals should be in charge, or that dangerous people should have easy access to firearms. If gun owners are turning corner, then maybe the public support is not as far away as you think.