I don’t think it should be, or was intended to be, in conflict with any of your points Fenring. While in my state one has the option to open carry, or to store at home a weapon without going through those “small administrative barriers” that description applies to Concealed Pistol Licenses fairly accurately.
Like my driver’s license, it is subject to renewal. There is a small fee. There was training and a test similar to (a much abbreviated) driver’s education program. While driver’s ed was free through our school at the time I took it, a lot of people pay for it out of pocket. Making that no different from the CPL class.
I also had had a criminal background check done by the state police. I also got printed by the state police. Needed to check I was who I said I was and wasn’t a suspect who’s prints were already on file makes sense. But it is what it is. I’m “in the system” now. I accepted that this license was a “privilege” and treated it, and allowed it to be treated, as such. I essentially told the state, “I understand that you don’t like that a citizen is carrying a firearm and am willing to make it as easy as possible for you to find and punish me if I ever go bad”.
I came to this decision because I believe in having the ability (almost said “right” there) to defend myself with the most effective means available to me, should the need arise. I also had the money to pay for a firearm, ammunition, the CPL training, the license fee and renewal fee(s). Not to mention the cost of range time and ammunition to practice with such that it is a tool I’m proficient with rather than just a security blanket…
Not all are comfortable with that bargain of state scrutiny. Not all are comfortable with even that economic barrier for defense. Most, who are honest with themselves see “hypothetical’s” like Greg’s to be nothing more than asking the question, “How can we ban guns in practice if not in name with a way consistent with the Constitution?”
For the record, I’m for the CPL guide lines being applied to all firearm ownership. I’m for reciprocity across all states for CPL (or just a generic “Fire Arm License” if that change was implemented). I think the training, which currently focuses, almost exclusively, on the legal aspects of use of force, should also cover weapons proficiency to a greater degree. I don’t know if a comprehensive class covering hunting rifles, home defense or every day carry or individual classes tailored relevant to the individual is best. With longer classes, the cost would also go up. With greater proficiency focus, cost of ammunition would go up. Time required to do so would also increase, making it harder for many to find the time.
None of that changes my opinion (much), but they should be considered. A single working parent on a tight budget may find it hard to find the time and money to get licensed. Regardless on your opinions on IF they should have a weapon in the first place, raising barriers that do not “put pressure to prevent gun murderers” may not be the best option.
The only time I’m for punishing those other than the shooter, are when someone allows another to employ their weapon through negligence (guardian leaves them accessible and unlocked) or willingly aids them in circumventing laws that would otherwise prevent the shooter from owning that weapon in the first place (guardian buys it “for them”).