From: Chuck Kuecker (ckuecker@ckent.org)
Date: Tue Feb 11 2003 - 06:44:16 MST
There is a school of thought, based on freedom of movement and the fact
that early driver's licenses were always for "commercial" drivers ( I
remember my Dad's license was a "chauffeur's" license, since he once drove
a city bus) that licensing the everyday, private motorist id
un-constitutional - and I have read accounts of legally blind people
defending themselves (in their homes) with weapons.
The Kalifornia test smacks of "Jim Crow" and poll taxes...since when is
English illiteracy a reason to prevent people from defending themselves?
I will shut up now.
Chuck Kuecker
At 20:05 02/10/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>Interesting point here. I hope it somehow possible to
>make the following observation without igniting a huge
>rancorous gun debate. Please reply with thought and
>calm restraint. {8-] (Mike, Samantha, you two scare me
>sometimes. {8^D)
>
>The state of Taxifornia recently adopted a written test
>that must be passed before one can purchase and register
>a firearm. Granted it is ridiculously simple (A firearm
>handled improperly can injure or kill someone, true or
>false, etc.)
>
>A drivers license has always required a written test.
>The big difference is that legally (in the U.S.) driving
>is a privelege, whereas gun ownership is a right,
>guaran-damn-teed by the consti-bygod-tution.
>
>Looks to me like Taxifornia is denying gun ownership
>rights to U.S. citizens who are illiterate, the blind
>(I need to think about that one), those who can read but
>not English. So in what sense is it legal to require a
>written test to own a gun?
>
>spike
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 11 2003 - 06:49:13 MST