General Discussion

The classic refutation is:

What other enumerated constitutional right does one have to
- Demonstrate need
- get mandatory training
- licensing
- periodic re-licensing
- pass a test
- pass a psych evaluation
- pay high taxes on
- pay for insurance on
- canned be banned by the executive branch
to exercise?

Posts on DU have called for all of the above in some measure without any concern for the legality. In all fairness I support mandatory training and other restrictions, but some of the posters are well over the top.

It should also be noted that where cars are effectively required for people to get to work (most of SoCal) the high gas taxes in CA are regressive and have been discussed as such.

As a lawyer you should also understand the historical stand in the EEO community about defacto even if unintended impacts. When the effect of a program falls disproportionately on the poor and minorities, back when we had real EEO in this country, that kind of disparate impact got you sued by the Federal government.

When the government forces the pricing on something artificially so only the well off can afford it, that's classim and often racist in impact. Backdooring gun control through a mandatory insurance program is a false flag and the courts would see through it. Articles like the one cited make that an easy case to prove. The right answer is to take the issue head on, feature by feature. The results would be much less attackable in the courts.

I would point out that this is already that way in Bloomberg territory. Want a handgun and you are well off, no problem, poor and minority, not so much.