Do high permit fees "infringe" on people's ability to own guns for protection?
A tax specifically on newspapers would be viewed as a violation of the First Amendment. Are these high fees effectively a ban on ownership, particularly for poor people who live in higher crime areas?
On the 10th anniversary of a sweeping state gun control law, patrons at James Dooley’s Middleboro Gun Shop are up in arms over what they see as a further assault on their rights: A proposed doubling of gun license fees.
“Why pick on us?” Dooley asked. “It’s a hidden tax to reduce the number of gun owners.”
Last week, Gov. Deval Patrick proposed doubling fees for gun permits, from $100 to $200. Firearms dealers could be hit with an even steeper hike: their three-year licenses would increase from $100 to $250, with two $100 inspection fees tacked on, bringing the total cost to $450. . . .
Labels: SecondAmendment
posted by John Lott at 4:17 PM
7 Comments:
Jim Crow is alive and well.
ALL FEES for any "registration" scheme are UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Doesn't anyone remember how POLL TAXES kept the poor from voting? How "literacy tests" kept the poor from voting? How "vision tests" keep the disabled from being able to GET A GUN? Requiring a "fee" to exercise a RIGHT changes that RIGHT into a PRIVILEGE! MA is trying to raise it's "license fee" to $200 PER GUN PER YEAR! I have more than 20 guns. IF that law were allowed to stand and my legislature figured it was a good way to raise more money to spend, I couldn't AFFORD THE LICENSE!!!!!!!! How would that be Constitutional?
Markie Marxist sez: "Of course not! And neither does poking them in the eye with a sharp stick either! Infringement is in the eye of the beholder, and we Marxists just don't see any infringement. No matter how hard we look."
Aw come on guys. Remember the poll tax on voting? How it was rulled unconstitutional?
High fees bar poor people from excercising their 2nd Amendment rights, just as a poll tax did the same thing to poor peoples right to vote.
fiftycal and others -
Let's keep in mind that the 2nd Amendment, while having been recognized as an individual right, has not been afforded the status of a fundamental individual right.
That accounts for the reasonable restrictions on the 2nd Amendment not conforming with reasonable restrictions on other such fundamental rights like voting.
David
Then the Second Amendment must be recognized as a "fundamental individual human right", FREE of taxes, fees, license fees, registration fees, photo fees, fingerprinting fees, documentation fees, ballistic fees, etc. If the First, Fourth,Fifth, etc HAVE been "incorporated" via the 14th, then the SECOND AMENDMENT is obviously RIPE for INCORPORATION! No city, county, state or federal law, rule, regulation or code should be allowed to CHARGE for a basic individual fundamental human right.
fiftycal sid, "Then the Second Amendment must be recognized as a 'fundamental individual human right',..."
Don't hold your breath. Strict scrutiny (the test for fundamental rights) will never be the test for the 2nd Amendment.
Post a Comment
<< Home