Many folks believe the current process is too difficult, and here you have more examples of what a gap there is between elite and ordinary opinion on self-defense:
During the final hour of a training class in November, the ears of the 16 permit-seekers perked up when an instructor started his lesson with the course’s most eagerly anticipated lecture: the use of deadly force. But many weren’t happy to learn they can’t use their weapons to stop a garage burglary, to scare off car thieves or even to frighten a trespasser.
“This don’t sit well with me,” said a retiree and military veteran after being told it isn’t legal to shoot through a closed door, even if he believes he’s defending himself.
“You don’t have to agree with it, (but) my job is to tell you the law,” the instructor said. “I’m not asking you to accept the law, I’m asking you to understand it.”
Because of the militia purpose outlined in the Second Amendment, I believe it’s within the states military powers to require firearms training (though not as a precondition for exercising the right), but if the state is going to require it, the state must pay for it. That’s not the case in Chicago, certainly. I can think of ways the city could structure its training requirement so that it would be constitutional, but its current method should not be declared so.