Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 1/12/2006 5:48:42 AM EDT
A thread the other day mentioned payng for roads via taxes means you should have a "Right" to use them, and therefore haveing a DL should be a right not a privlidge. This got me thinking

What about states that make you pay for a gun permit? What about the "Right" to Keep and Bear Arms. Everyone benefits from roads wheather they are allowed to/choose to use them or not. My neighbor does not benefit from me purchasing a firearm (unless they work in the firearm industry), so why should I have to pay a "tax" or "Fee" to utilize my constitutional right.

We do not have to pay to register to vote. Imagine the uproar that would cause. Well come to think of it probably not.

please dont turn this into a fullauto, SBR etc discussion just acknowledge that SOME regulation is required by the Government but should we have to pay for a "Right"
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 6:00:34 AM EDT
Your neighbor does benefit from your ownership of guns. It is generally believed that the reason CCW laws reduce crime is that it increases BGs' perceived risk when contemplating crimes. Burglary rates are lower in areas where gun ownership is known to be common, probably for the same reason. If one concedes that licensure is reasonable (I don't, for reasons I'll explain) then it is reasonable to charge a fee for the license, simply because issuance costs money. It would be equally reasonable to eliminate the fee, because of the benefit to unlicensed people deriving from the proliferation of arms.

Licensure for gun carriage or ownership or for driving is a silly concept, if the purpose is anything other than generating government revenue. It is a crime for anyone who is not qualified for licensure to own or carry a gun, with or without a license. Anyone who is qualified but unlicensed can only be prosecuted for a regulatory violation - failure to have a license. Anyone who is unqualified for licensure can be prosecuted for the underlying possessory offense rather than the regulatory violation.

As for driver licensing, it is a scam. I don't know of anyone who has been ultimately unsuccessful in getting a license. I don't know of more than a tiny minority of people with suspended or revoked licenses who are deterred from driving. The sole appeciable effect of licensure requirements is to generate fines and keep the jails full. It is entirely feasible to simply punish traffic offenses by forbidding driving, and to punish violation of the ban.
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 6:01:40 AM EDT
It gets sticky.

Free speech is a right, but you have to pay for internet access (one avenue of excersizing that right).
Some argue that paying for a CCW permit - even in shall issue states - is an infringement. Some say it isn't.
We have a right to keep and bear arms, but we still have to purchase said arms.

It's a matter of degrees. Arguing about them is what makes it interesting.
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 6:03:32 AM EDT
No state makes anyone get a permit for anything. By obtaining the permit though you are admitting that the state does hold power over you.
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 6:58:43 AM EDT
Here in NC we have to purchase a permit to buy a pistol. They cost $5 apiece and you can only get 5 at one time. If it was a filing fee it should only cost $5 total and you should get as many as you need/want

englt
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 7:01:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
No state makes anyone get a permit for anything. By obtaining the permit though you are admitting that the state does hold power over you.



Power doesn't depend on concessions of the victim. When a robber gets a victim's wallet, it's because the victim conceded power. Authority is a different matter.
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 7:08:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/12/2006 7:08:44 AM EDT by LonePathfinder]
It cost 127 dollars for a CCW permit in MS, for the first time application, and a 120 day wait.
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 7:10:43 AM EDT



there was an appelate court ruling years ago (that i can never remember the case name) where it was determined that the government cannot raise or levy a tax against, or require licensing for, the practice of an ammended right.

IIRC the reasoning behind this was that if they can do those things, then they have the power to get rid of those ammended rights by making the fees too high, or the requirements too stringent.

think "may issue" states...

Link Posted: 1/12/2006 7:21:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ENGLT:
Here in NC we have to purchase a permit to buy a pistol. They cost $5 apiece and you can only get 5 at one time. If it was a filing fee it should only cost $5 total and you should get as many as you need/want

englt



Yeah, but what exactly do they need to file? Nothing since registering guns in NC supposedly does not exist. So basicly, we are paying for the right to buy a handgun - period. It is a way to force a NICs check since they are not required for FTF or gun show sales.


Link Posted: 1/12/2006 7:36:23 AM EDT
Lest you forget, "Poll taxes" were ruled unconstitutional as one should not have to pay to exercise his right to vote. Poll taxes were rampant in the south to prevent poor blacks from voting.
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 7:39:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ENGLT:
Here in NC we have to purchase a permit to buy a pistol. They cost $5 apiece and you can only get 5 at one time. If it was a filing fee it should only cost $5 total and you should get as many as you need/want

englt



In, where is it, New Jersey?, they solve the handgun licensing problem by reducing to only a few places where one can apply for one. I think it is down to only 5 places in the entire state.
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 7:39:24 AM EDT
We can't even require people to identify themselves at the poles because it is unconstitutional.


By "identify themselves", I am specifically refering to a government issued photo Identification Card, such as a driver's license. The very same photo ID that a person would have to have for... let's say... cash a welfare check, for example.
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 7:59:45 AM EDT
See where this is going don't you? ABORTION is claimed to be the super-duper-uber constitutional 'right' and then it's proponents jump to "therefore the government should pay for the proceedure if someone is too poor to exercise her 'right'".

Look at all the OTHER "rights" that DEMAND, DEMAND tax-payer subsidy; it's a right so the gubmit better use tax dollars to give it to me for free!!!

Health care...education....drugs...

Things that allow the .gov to have influence over people or will produce dependency on bureaucracy are given away, paid for by our tax dollars. Things that would make people independent, able to stand on our own feet, are taxed, regulated, made difficult to acquire or keep.

And...just because I can, here in a nut shell is why Roe vs Wade is going down: if "rights to privacy" were always considered to include abortion, then why did legislatures from the dawn of the republic pass bans on the 'proceedure' routinely for centuries? If "the people" always thought those uninnumerated rights included abortion, then the solution was/is LEGISLATION, not court cases to correct the problem.

Because Contraception and abortion and gay marriage and a host of other issues were/are shoveled through courts rather than legislatures en route to becoming "constitutional rights" they tip their hand that they were NEVER "constitutional" in the primary sense of the word. Whereas the right to keep and bear arms IS specifically mentioned.... but it doesn't matter.
Top Top