The underlying "problem" is that slowly, incrementally, over the last two centuries (and particulary rapidly in the last century) we have changed from a society were nearly anything was allowed, unless it was forbidden, to one where many more things are forbidden and many things are allowed only if approved.
One of the problems with permits (and I agree that the concept is a violation of the accepted understanding of the word "infringed") is that they are state laws. Looking at the Federal Constitution and calling all repugnant state laws unconstitutional as a blanket statement is incorrect.
Our nation is a curious dichotomy, with the idea of a strong Federal government, and one set of rules for all on one side, and the issue of state's rights to their own laws and governance on the other.
The original intent of the Founders was
not to have the governments of the "several states" to be mearly local administrators of Federal law.
Each state (or commonwealth) has its own constitution. And while these documents generally mirror the federal one, there are differences. And any lawyer or engineer will tell you the devil (or God, depending on their viewpoint) is in the details.
The 2nd Amendment says we have the right to "keep and bear arms" (and please spell bear correctly!
) while several states say "keep and bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state" (or similar wording). Note the small, seemingly inconsequential difference in the language used. We all understand that the "defense of self and state" is
implied in the Fed 2nd Amendment, but it isn't written. And as earlier noted, legal English is NOT the same (anymore) as regular spoken English.
A good example of this is "I pulled up to the stop sign, stopped, looked both ways, and after a minute, pulled out". Now, what you have just told the court is that you waited a full 60 seconds before pulling out. And if it turns out that you did not wait the full 60 seconds, you have lied to the court, and your credability in all things is now questioned. The simple use of the word "minute" instead of of "moment", something done daily by virtually all of us, can open a real can of worms in court.
How then do you think that the language of our laws is any different in a court? What seems clear and unambigous to us can be very different in court (or in the legislatures). Sad, but true.
Yes, we should not have to get prior approval for anything that is a "right", nor should we have to pay for such appoval. I agree. Reality, however, is somewhat different.
I hold that in principle one should not have to proove to the government that one is not a prohibited person. It is their responsibility to proove that you are. And they should pay for it, as well.
And before you start crying about how you shouldn't have to pay for my background check (through taxes), I would suggest that we have the govt use the money (of ours) that it already has, rather than spending it on subsidising someone dropping elephant dung on a picture of the Madonna and calling it art!