New approach to gun laws

[leahcim 680]

You don't need a government permit to exercise your First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, or Tenth Amendment rights...... so why should you need a government permit to exercise your Second Amendment right?

 

The whole notion of Firearm ID or Gun Owner Endorsement etc is attempting to create a 'white list' of allowed gun owners. This idea is repugnant to the definition of freedom. We should instead maintain a 'black list' of people who are NOT allowed to own guns*, and search the black list in a non-invasive way that DOES NOT LOG THE NAME YOU ARE SEARCHING FOR.

 

Craft a legal framework that does this, and you'll please both sides of the issue

If you assume that the bill of rights are human rights, individual rights, and of equal importance.  Is there an approach similar to say the framework that has been crafted around regulation of 1A free speech? vis the four-pronged "time, place and manner restrictions" the SCOTUS has developed to define when govt speech restrictions may be allowed?  i.e. content neutral, narrowly drawn (should be the least restrictive regulation that will still accomplish the stated govt purpose), must serve a significant govt interest, and must leave open methods of communication.  And regulation can vary based on the type of speech:

"Application of this analysis varies in accordance with the circumstances of each case.The rationale supporting a particular TPM restriction may receive less rigorous scrutiny when the government seeks to regulate speech of lower value such as Obscenity and fighting words. Obscene speech includes most hard-core Pornography, while fighting words include offensive speech that would incite a reasonable person to violence. Conversely, the government must offer "compelling" reasons for regulating highly valued forms of expression, such as political speech. Some speech, such as commercial advertisements, is valued less than political speech but more than obscenity or fighting words. The government may impose reasonable TPM restrictions on this intermediate category of speech only if it can advance a "significant" or "important" reason for doing so." (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Time,+Place,+and+Manner+Restrictions)

  

Is it far-fetched to think a similar test can be applied to 2A?  I think the only significant govt interests are to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazy people, and to prevent illegal, criminal usage of guns.  Any govt restriction on this human right (2A) needs to be weapon-neutral and must be the least restrictive means to accomplish the govt interest.  For example, registration of all legally owned guns (which really should include any gun owned by any law-abiding citizen; even FA) is not the least restrictive means, and it does not even accomplish the govt. interest, as it only restricts people who follow the law,