Many who support greater firearm-related restrictions call for the registration of all firearms, and all firearm owners to be licensed and required to obtain permits to make their acquisition, ownership, and use of firearms legal. Many believe that would be a victory to achieve. In truth if such would simply not be the case, and instead would simply serve to destroy their own base argument. Observe. In the Heller ruling by the united state supreme court, the court stated it was not going to address the licensing and registration requirements in place in the district, simply because the plaintiff did not challenge such requirements due to the total handgun prohibition taking legal precedent at the time. However the court did note the requirements were not objectionable, so long as they were not enforced in an arbitrary or capricious fashion. This could be taken as a statement that for any firearm-related restriction to pass constitutional muster, it can be neither arbitrary nor capricious in terms of either execution or content. Operating on the assumption the above holds true, even if licensing and registration requirements could be mandated at the federal level, it would ultimately prove to be anything but a victory for advocates of greater firearm-related restrictions. For licensing requirements to be found as neither arbitrary nor capricious, those tasked with issuing a license would have to issue licenses to absolutely anyone and everyone who applies and qualifies. This would ultimately mean shall-issue would have to be the legally required standard, not may-issue or discretionary. And if one notes how background checks on potential renters is discriminatory, and identification requirements for voting is discriminatory, a higher standard for those seeking firearm licenses and permits could not legally be held to a different standard. This would ultimately mean that a license would have to be issued to absolutely anyone and everyone who can pass the required background check when purchasing a firearm from a federally licensed firearms dealer. This would ultimately mean the only individuals who could be denied a firearm permit are those who already possess a disqualifying criminal record, thus meaning the licensing process does nothing that the already existing system does not do. If George Zimmerman applied for a firearms license, even he would have to be issued a license since he has no criminal record. This would mean the licensing process is ultimately redundant and serving no role in existing, and those who support the process would be obligated to justify and defend the existence of a redundant system that is no more beneficial than the background check system. It cannot even be argued that those who are issuing the licenses would find pertinent information the background check system is lacking, as the licensing would be done at the federal level rather than the local level. Even if the matter could be exported to the individual states, it would then become a question of why the individual states have failed to comply with federal requirements of forwarding said pertinent information to the federal government for inclusion in the national instant check system. On top of the matter of redundancy is the matter of fees that would need to be paid. The united state supreme court has already held that poll taxes are unconstitutional, and as no one would be able to legally own a firearm without obtaining a permit, meaning there are no circumstances for legally exercising a constitutional right without first applying to government, any fee that would be charged for the paperwork would constitute a poll tax. No matter what fee might be proposed, no matter how high or how low it may be, it would ultimately be challenged for being arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory against the economically disadvantaged. For the licensing requirement to pass constitutional muster, the paperwork would have to be processed for free, with the cost being footed exclusively by the federal government. In addition to the aforementioned matters, there is the simple fact the licensing requirement would not serve to prevent any firearm-related homicides from occurring. Since the licenses would have to be issued to anyone who applies and can pass a background check, it would mean that every future mass shooter was a licensed firearms owner, which would demonstrate that licensing requirements do not fulfill the promise upon which they are sold, that being that they serve to prevent mass killings from being committed. It will merely confirm that there is no way of knowing just who may become a mass shooter, why they made the decision, or when they will follow through with their plans. Even if the public demands that those tasked with issuing the licenses be provided the authority to discriminate against applicants, such could still not legally be allowed, as per the Heller ruling by the united state supreme court. In addition there is the matter of enforcement of the licensing and registration requirements, and for that it is necessary to turn to the so-called "war on drugs" for further discussion. Such statutes are drafted in a manner that is color blind, but when it comes to matters of actual enforcement, the statutes are charged as being discriminatory against minorities, simply because law enforcement officers are more likely to suspect minority individuals of a crime than white individuals by comparison. With licenses having to be issued for free to anyone without a criminal record, such would ultimately mean the only individuals who would not have a license would be those with a disqualifying criminal record, the majority of which are minority individuals, largely due to institutionalized bias on the part of law enforcement. Even if firearm licensing and registration requirements are implemented at the national level, law enforcement will still be more likely to suspect minority individuals of carrying an unregistered firearm without a license than they would a white individual, and the arrest and prosecution records will show such as being the case. This would ultimately put supporters of firearm-related restrictions in a unique bind. Do they support the prosecution of minority individuals for the federal crime of unlicensed possession of a firearm? Or do they oppose the prosecution of these individuals due to the supposedly discriminatory enforcement just as they do when it comes to the matter of illicit narcotic substances? Which standard do they support, and which do they oppose, when both standards are ultimately their own? They cannot oppose the requirement of unlicensed firearms possession being prosecuted on the basis of more offenders being minority individuals without admitting that their policy has nothing to do with public safety. Yet at the same time they cannot support doing away with the licensing requirement on the basis of it being discriminatory due to institutionalized bias on the part of law enforcement. In simple, uncomplicated, easy to understand terms, if licensing and registration requirements were implemented with regard to firearms, those who supported the measure would stand to lose far more in the matter than those who are opposed to greater firearm-related restrictions would stand to lose in comparison.
