The Second Amendment doesn't say that gun ownership has to be free of charge

It’s just a fact of life that handguns are now permanent legal fixtures in the American landscape. We have to live with that.But the freedom to own a firearm doesn’t mean it has to be free of charge. It doesn’t mean that owners can’t be a tiny bit inconvenienced. And someone’s right to own a gun certainly does not trump the safety rights of the rest of us.This is what the pro-gun people don’t seem to understand.Gun rights advocates in Illinois are in an uproar over legislation that is being debated[1] in the General Assembly. The bill simply would make it harder for people who aren’t supposed to have guns to legally obtain them. The amendment to House Bill 96, sponsored by Rep. Kathleen Willis, is one of several bills introduced in the aftermath of a multiple shooting at a manufacturing warehouse in Aurora in February.Of course, we don’t know if stricter state laws could have stopped 45-year-old Gary Martin from shooting five co-workers to death[2], in addition to injuring five police officers, after learning he was to be terminated. But many Illinois residents are demanding that our lawmakers at least give it a try.What we do know is that Martin never should have had access[3] to his .40-caliber handgun when he went on his deadly rampage. He had a valid firearm owner’s identification card when he purchased the gun in 2014, but he’d lied on his application about his felony conviction.Since fingerprinting was not required for the FOID card, the Illinois State Police did not know about Martin’s criminal record in Mississippi. Later that year, he applied for a concealed carry license and opted to speed up the process by submitting fingerprints. That tipped authorities off about his prior conviction for aggravated assault, but he never turned the

Read more from our friends at the NRA...