[Jim Richards]

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.