Fee's for rights?

[Wee Hooker]

OK, PLEASE tell me if I'm misunderstanding the current state of the 2nd amendment debate here. I'm having trouble grasping something.

So didn't the US supreme court finally rule ( last year) that US citizens have the right to own guns ? (Like we have all been saying. Not just form a militia.. yada yada.)??
If so, then how are state regs requireing an individual to pay and apply for a permit to own/purchse a firearm not unconstitutional?? I'n my mind this equates to having to pay $100 and wait for the approval for free speach.

What am I missing?? If I'm not, then where is the NRA in challanging these laws?

 

[NKJ nut]

Most gun control laws are unconstitutional. In fact the U.S. Constitution doesn't make any restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. unfortunately thousand of laws have been added at various levels from the fed on down to the local burgs that do place restrictions on our rights. Which ones should we take on first? It's a little impractical for the NRA to take on all of them at once. If you have noticed; the gun rights cause has made some important advances in the last few years, but we didn't get the mess of gun rights restrictions all at one time and we can't get rid of them all at once either.

But yes; there should not be a permit or fee to pay before purchasing a firearm. I am glad that there is no such silliness in my state. I would be upset too if I lived in a place that required such.

 

[ckprax]

Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) secured our right to keep arms. The SC still has not confirmed our right to carry. Scrutiny also comes into play.

As much as we would all like to get rid of all gun control, it simply will not happen. So we will have restrictions on our rights, which are constitutional are yet to be seen. We need to have a framework on how to apply the various levels of scrutiny first. If we can establish strict scrutiny most all gun control will fail, it will be difficult to prove that the state has a compelling need to permit gun ownership when there is no evidence that it will reduce crime.

In time it should fail but currently we are in the infancy of re-establishing our right to keep and bare arms.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

In both pre-Revolution colonial days, as well as during the American Revolution, many locales not only required every able-bodied freeholder to participate in militia activites, including provision of arms, ammunition, and accoutrements, but provided that those who could not because of religious restrictions or other matters of conscience were required to pay a special tax in order to provide arms and equipment to others willing to serve but unable to pay for their own equippage. These are well documented facts, although generally overlooked by those who wish to disengage themselves from the realities of American history.

In short, while any law limiting the ability of the average citizen to keep and bear arms is generally prohibited by the Second Amendment, laws have been upheld that require those who choose not to keep and bear arms to pay special taxes to support those who are ready to uphold their civic duties but haven't the financial ability to properly equip themselves for community defense duties.

This is a very interesting field for pursuing legislation that not only supports individual rights, but places some burdens upon those who choose not to participate in community defense.

How many would stand up to speak against individual rights to keep and bear arms if they were required to pay an assessment in lieu of militia service in order to support those willing to serve, but without the ability to arm themselves in accordance with duly adopted laws?

We remain a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Law enforcement and community defense remain the responsibilities of the people, although we have chosen to retain a "select militia" (i.e.: local and state police, sheriffs, national guard, etc) for the purpose of conducting the day-to-day functions so that the rest of us may go about our business.

Appointing others to stand in our shoes does not relieve us of our responsibilities to act in the common defense. All it does is to provide a trip-wire mechanism allowing the community to marshal its resourses and respond when required, every citizen standing ready in the defense of every other citizen. This requires individuals possessing both the commitment to community as well as the means to defend it.

 

[Pasifikawv]

.... Scrutiny also comes into play... If we can establish strict scrutiny most all gun control will fail, it will be difficult to prove that the state has a compelling need to permit gun ownership when there is no evidence that it will reduce crime....

Excellent point. Given the RTKBA is a "fundamental" and individual right, I believe that strict scrutiny should be the standard for reviewing any law or restriction that impacts Article II of the Bill of Rights.

If there is no compelling public/state interest; if the law is not narrowly tailored and as limited in scope as possible; or if it isn't successful in achieving the state/public interest objective; the law should not stand.

Reducing crime and violence may be a compelling public interested, but misguided and heavy-handed gun control laws simply do not (and never have) worked to reduce crime and violence.

 

[jsimmons]

In Texas, we can only carry concealed, and we have to pay a fee to get the license that effectively converts our 2nd Amendment right to a state-granted privilege. No choice. Pay a tithe to the state, or give up your right.

 

[Wee Hooker]

I guess this is my point. This seems like low hanging and very ripe fruit for an NRA suit. Instead they seem to focus on smaller/less important cases. Disapointing

 

[Steve in Vermont]

In Texas, we can only carry concealed, and we have to pay a fee to get the license that effectively converts our 2nd Amendment right to a state-granted privilege. No choice. Pay a tithe to the state, or give up your right.

Of all the states with such gun laws Texas continues to surprise me. NY, Mass, Ill, Calif, I expect such restrictions....but Texas?

 

[steamloco76]

Gun permit fees are just one of a long list of RIGHTS that have been converted to PRIVILEGES through fees and taxation.

The 4th and 10th Amendments have been trampled. The 2nd is always under attack and the 1st is more and more controlled by elitists with deep financial ties to leftist agenda groups.

Though not specifically granted by the Bill of Rights; as a free Democratic Republic We had a right to own property, now it is taxed beyond reason in most locales making it a for a fee privilege. We have a right to work, however I now pay occupational PRIVILEGE taxes to my county and the municipality in which I work.

It will keep getting worse and worse unless The People wake up and take action at the polls instead of sitting back and complaining or saying "one vote doesn't make a difference."

Now I'm off my soap box- which I paid state sales tax on to purchase.

 

[whoever]

Its a shame that more states don't support freedom. Places like AK and AZ for instance. Must be the A states.

 

[brucev]

In Texas, we can only carry concealed, and we have to pay a fee to get the license that effectively converts our 2nd Amendment right to a state-granted privilege. No choice. Pay a tithe to the state, or give up your right.

Just a brief question. Are you saying that in Tx. one is not allowed to carry a handgun in a holster on a belt when out in the fields or woods? Sincerely. brucev.

 

[silentflyer]

Tax,fee,license,use fees,permit, etc. it's always about $$$ with the politicians, how to keep the flow from your wallet to theirs...

 

[venomballistics]

OK, PLEASE tell me if I'm misunderstanding the current state of the 2nd amendment debate here. I'm having trouble grasping something.

So didn't the US supreme court finally rule ( last year) that US citizens have the right to own guns ? (Like we have all been saying. Not just form a militia.. yada yada.)??
If so, then how are state regs requireing an individual to pay and apply for a permit to own/purchse a firearm not unconstitutional?? I'n my mind this equates to having to pay $100 and wait for the approval for free speach.

What am I missing?? If I'm not, then where is the NRA in challanging these laws?

you refer to the handgun purchase permit?
honestly, I half way like that one as the system negates any waiting period. with it, pistols are OTD same day service for the most part cept for Omaha proper where you have to go down to the cop shop and unconstitutionally jump through hoops before you can take possession

 

[pete950]

New in the news tonight. The Chicago Dictator Mayor Rham wants to make a state wide gun registration in ILL. Can't wait to retire and get out of here. Oh and the other Chicago Deomoncrats are with him,
The wonderful Govenor, Ald Burk and the Madigans.