Friday, July 11, 2008

Something I just don't understand

It seems that requiring someone to pass a test and pay for a license is blatantly unconstitutional if you're talking about history tour guides, but it's perfectly OK to require someone to pass a test and pay for a license to get a gun?

The Institute for Justice is challenging Philadelphia's new requirement that tour guides be licensed and take special history and geography exams. IJ seems to be exactly right on this: Such a requirement violates the First Amendment.

The government surely couldn't require that authors of history books or travel books be licensed and take exams. Nor can it require the same as to producers of travel documentary DVDs, or actors in theaters that present history/geography-related informational entertainment.

So what the heck do we do with these guys? History tour guides with guns!

Mind you, I'm not saying it's necessarily bad to get yourself all edumacated-like if you've a mind to pack some heat. Just what's the big diff between the first and second amendments? I must be missing something.

I guess that's why you need to take a zillion years of law school, to learn that the obvious isn't.

1 comment: said...

Yep. History knowledge is only one part to make a qualified guide, but not all. You can't test everything and issue dozens of licenses to say someone is qualified.