And yet, we have the patterns of behavior we see in our police.

And yet we continuously decry this as "bad." It's wrong when they do it yet you encourage it more. Guess you're one of those "thin blue line" guys who thinks it's good if you want to do it too, eh?

To own a gun, you must be licensed as a gun owner.

2a prevents this, it would have to be overturned to pass. Licensure is seen as turning a right into a privilege by the courts. Personally I don't like it because of how easily it could be abused to deny "the dangerous blacks" or "those suicidal trans" from gun ownership by an "instructor" so inclined.

To be licensed as a gun owner, you must complete a nationally standardized gun safety course. Then and only then can you take legal possession of a firearm.

See above. Though I did want to mention accidents are on the low end of our actual problem in terms of numbers. I think gun safety is important too but this does nothing to stop murderers and the like.

To teach such a course, you must be trained and certified to do so.

The license thing being blocked by the 2a still throws a wrench in your plan, but these are the guys who can decide "I won't approve guns for blacks" that I was referring to. Currently, these people are sheriffs doing it with carry permits, because that's the extent of their power, but it is being done as black people are iirc 60-70% of permit denials in some areas. Furthermore some guy deciding I'm "weird" is no basis for denying me rights. Even if it isn't due to skin color, I'm certainly not christian, what if I happen to wear my Anti-Christ Demoncore (great band) shirt and the instructor decides that's a "red flag" simply because he doesn't understand Vegan Satanists from California aren't actually all that bad just because they use scary imagry? Hell, "those columbine kids loved metallica, any metalhead shouldn't own a gun" is a thing I've actually heard before. Having the basis for denial of rights being anything other than "is criminal" opens denial of rights up far too wide.

Trainers of such a course are empowered and encouraged to reject issuance of a license based on a standardized list of criteria. One might call them flags. One might call them "red" flags, to highlight that they should be cause for concern.

Sheriffs currently can do this to some degree with those permits, it's just that those "red flags" are often "is black."

To maintain your license status, you must have a safety course refresher on some periodic basis. (I'm thinking a certain number of years, more than one, but not too many.)

Frankly safety doesn't change much over time, the guns themselves haven't even changed all that much in the last 100yr.

If unlicensed, it's a felony to leave your home with your guns.

But they can have them unlicensed at home even though they can't legally own them at all without a license? A) How would they get it home from the store? B) From the home to the range?

Charges dropped if you make a valid self-defense case after doing so.

So if you carry it illegally out and don't get attacked and don't shoot anyone but get searched by an overzealous likely racist cop you're fucked, but if you do get attacked and kill a guy it's cool that you were carrying illegally? Why not just not harass the guy for not getting attacked?

And if you are leaving the home to overthrow your tyrannical government, then the laws don't really matter at that point, right?

Well sure lol.