My Two Cents...Well Ok More Like a Buck and a Quarter
A FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
Government action that discriminates against (or "penalizes," or "unduly burdens") a "fundamental right"--i.e., a right explicitly or implicitly guaranteed by the Constitution--is subject to "strict scrutiny" and violates equal protection unless found to be necessary to a compelling state interest [See San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973)].
As of this date the Supreme Court has refused to recognize the Second Amendment as a "Fundamental Right." I believe this is a serious judicial error in that just as freedom of speech and the right to vote has been held a "fundamental right," so to should the right to bear arms.
However, there is no free pass given to the government to impinge upon a non-fundamental right. Where there is impingement on a non-fundamental right the judicial branch will review such law under a “rational basis test” where the law will not be found unconstitutional unless it lacks a rational basis. Unfortunately, this standard of a "rational basis" allows reasonable minds to differ on what is and what is not rational. However, after a long review of the import restrictions, the 1968 Gun Control Act or 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA) I find little rational basis within them.
A person need only review the Congressional record during the hearings held prior to the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934 to see that it (as subsequent restrictions passed on firearms) was based on fear. Violence caused by prohibition coupled with fear of communist movements prompted Congressional hearings throughout the 1930s to review proposed bills that were meant to restrict interstate commerce of machine guns. See Hearings on H.R. 2569, H.R. 6606, H.R. 6607, and H.R. 11325, before a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 71st Cong., 2d Sess. 1-3, 7 (1930).
However, a person need only to review the Criminal Statistics from 1933 and compare them to those of 2005 to see that violent crimes have drastically increased despite such so called "rational restrictions" on firearms. Failing a review of the statistics a reasonable person need only drive through the streets of present day Chicago or Detroit to realize that crime has only increased rather than decreased.
Now, I am only a mere law student from a working class background and not a Supreme Court Justice, but I fail to see any rational basis in the restriction on firearms in place by the government. However, I do see a rational basis in the restrictions placed on the ability of someone to carry a pistol in public.
A RATIONAL BASIS
When any individual has a firearm within their home they pose little if any risk to the general public. However, the risk to public safety becomes apparent when that person ventures outside the walls of their home. This can be applied to the fact that there is no statute (that I am aware of) that forbids owning a car, but all states do have restrictions on who can operate those cars in the general public. The state under the 10th Amendment has the power to pass legislation to protect the safety and welfare of its citizens. The Supreme Court has recognized the right of states to restrict who can demolish buildings, own dangerous "zoo" animals, etcetera. I believe that placing restrictions on who can carry a pistol among the general public is a rational act.
However, I do believe that those restrictions should be narrowly tailored and equally applied. I see no harm in requiring two day basic pistol courses, background checks (the Court has upheld the denial of felons the right to vote), and reasonable license fees. This would all be in keeping with the state's interest in keeping the general public safe.
CONCLUSION
An American Citizen should be free to possess and purchase any type of firearm as the Second Amendment should be a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. Even if the Second Amendment is held to only a rational basis standard the laws that exist today are void of any rational basis that justifies the restriction on a Constitutional Right.
On the other hand, the right to carry a concealed pistol is not enumerated in the Constitution and thus should be held as a privilege capable of being licensed by a state under its 10th Amendment powers. As the people control the legislature through elections they should elect politicians that carry out the will of the people in accordance with what should be required for a concealed pistol license.
I love firearms of all types, but I also recognize the State's responsibility to insure the safety of the general public
