Hindsight is 20/20. Sure, it looks now like this guy should have been prevented from getting the gun, but I don't see how you could devise and implement a system that would pick up somebody like him, yet not be overly burdensome on people wanting to legally buy and sell guns.

You guys obviously know a lot about guns and gun safety. And of course you're right, no reasonable person is going to carry around a pistol under their coat if they don't know how to use it. I'm with Geo on that, I'd never consider do it without taking some classes first. But while reading this thread I keep thinking back to 2008, when the Supreme Court struck down Washington DC's ban on handgun ownership as unconstitutional. Remember that? They ruled that in the Second Amendment, where it says, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," the words "the people" means you and I, not "The People" as in the United States of America, ending a decades-old debate on the subject. So now, the problem as I see it is that while no reasonable person would carry a concealed firearm without proper instruction, unfortunately, that instruction costs money, and if you start making it a legal requirement to obtain that instruction, then you're changing a Constitutionally guaranteed right into a privilege. It's unconstitutional for the same reason that requiring someone to get a permit to vote was ruled unconstitutional; it discriminates against those who can't afford to do so.