Well, of course no reasonable person would want a violent person to have permission to have a firearm. I was just making the point that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and can be infringed. Therefore, I can see no constitutional impediment to compulsory background checks and licensing - in ALL circumstances - as a condition for permission to possess a firearm. Judicial decisions to the contrary are clearly politically motivated.\n\nAnd, no question, such requirements won't prevent criminals being criminals, or stupid people being stupid.\n\n\nI think the use of "shall not..." was used because it carries more weight than "will not". I also think there was a good amount of assumption that people would act in a lawful manner but they already had laws pertaining to murder and I don't remember hearing that murderers were ever released, so repeating that particular crime in the outside world was very unlikely. Look at the penalties used by England in the past- placing heavy stones on the chest of a person, dungeons, beheading, drawing and quartering- hardly civil punishments for crimes that are also uncivil. Now, we have people placing their signature on a document after the judge asks "You'll be good, right?".