There are times when needing a permit to exercise a right isn't a horrible thing. For example, when you're planning a large protest, getting a permit makes sure everyone knows it's a thing and plans can be adjusted to accommodate the protest.
But if you want to stand outside of city hall with a sign, all by your lonesome, a permit is nothing but an infringement upon your right to free speech. There are no accommodations needed, after all. It's just a way to make it more onerous to exercise your right.
In a similar vein, permit-to-purchase laws are no different. Someone buying a gun for themselves isn't some imposition on the state. It's just a hoop to make someone jump through in order to exercise that right.
And Delaware just passed a requirement for such a permit.
The NRA, however, isn't just going to pretend it's not a thing. They're taking it to court.
Striking while the iron was hot, the National Rifle Association on May 19 filed a lawsuit challenging Delaware’s new law requiring a permit to purchase a firearm. The filing came on the very same day the measure was signed into law by Gov. John Carney.
NRA filed the lawsuit, Neuberger v. Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security, in the federal district court of Delaware on behalf of three individuals, the Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association and the Bridgeville Rifle & Pistol Club.
At issue is the new law that requires Delaware residents to obtain a “Handgun Qualified Purchaser Permit” before purchasing a handgun. To obtain a permit, a person must—at his or her own expense—complete an 11-part training course, in addition to a number of other requirements.
According to NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, a permit is valid for only two years, and to qualify for a permit the applicant must have completed the training course within the prior five years. Additionally, the law has a confiscation component built in where if a person’s permit is revoked, the law instructs law enforcement to confiscate all handguns acquired with the permit.
Now, let's understand that the course to get the permit has one more part than the concealed carry permit training course. That's right, they want you to undergo more training to buy a gun than to carry one.
Further, the requirements include things like state and federal background checks and firing at least 100 rounds with a gun they cannot lawfully own. The bill doesn't say where these guns to be used in training come from, which creates a catch-22. You can't take the training without a handgun, but you can't get a handgun without the training.
Of course, the NRA notes that since this is at the applicants' expense, this may well prevent many economically disadvantaged people from being able to access their constitutionally protected right to own a handgun.
Which, of course, is of no concern to those who created or voted for this law.
See, they don't actually think the rabble should have a firearm. They just can't ban them to such a degree that only the elites can obtain them.
We need to remember that gun bans are never really total gun bans. There are always some with guns, even under the most repressive regime. It's just not going to be people like you or me, which is often the point.
In this instance, if someone can't afford the training requirement--even if they could dodge the catch-22 of needing a gun to complete the training but being unable to obtain a gun--then they just get to take their chances with law enforcement getting there in time.
Since poorer folks also tend to live in places where police response times are less than stellar, well, that's one way to address economic disparity, I suppose.
My hope is that this lawsuit is heard and dealt with properly, especially under Bruen's history, text, and tradition standards. There's no way this should fly, and my hope is that the result ends this permit-to-purchase nonsense forever.
