Plenty of the suggestions in this thread are prudent. They are also gross infringements on a right that "shall not be infringed".

Once again, separate the right to own from the responsibility to safely operate. For example, the gov't fines you for operating your gun without proof of taking a gov't mandated training course. I could see such a law being upheld by the Supremes. However, they can't take away the gun you own, or prevent you from buying it.

Since the SCOTUS specifcally mentioned/sturck down DC's requirement that guns in the home be kept locked and inoperable, I highly doubt a federal competency law would pass muster. I can't think of any other individual right in the BOR that has something like that.

Once again, you're confusing own from operate. DC wanted to prevent you from owning handguns, and prevented you from operating rifles inside or outside your home. If there was a training requirement that resulted in a fine if ignored, why do you think SCOTUS would be against it? Re-read Scalia's majority opinion. He's not against some reasonable restrictions like preventing criminals and insane folks from owning guns. He's not against owning howitzers and bazookas. I could easily imagine a civil penalty for operating a gun without training. I don't necessarily advocate it, but wouldn't be suprised if SCOTUS would find it constitutional.

And you're confusing operate with keeping and bearing. It's ony two lines long. Reread it. I sure like having that right to vote, but a poll tax would ruin my day.

I give up. :rolleyes:

Resident yes, permanent resident, no. If you are here on an extended visa, and you meet all the other criteria, you can buy a gun.