Posted: 2/12/2013 11:35:51 AM EDT
|
Sen Jane English & Rep Andrea Lea have filed a bill today to reduce the CHCL fees to $50, offer CHCL licenses to vets and persons over 60 years old at only $25, and offer free licenses to those whom have obtained an order of protection.
In before hbr says it sucks. 
|
|
Quoted: Sen Jane English & Rep Andrea Lea have filed a bill today to reduce the CHCL fees to $50, offer CHCL licenses to vets and persons over 60 years old at only $25, and offer free licenses to those whom have obtained an order of protection. In before hbr says it sucks. No worries man. I have learned my lesson. I am not wired to be a lone voice in the wilderness. Ya'll go ahead and embrace this crap and find out what a quagmire it is. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sen Jane English & Rep Andrea Lea have filed a bill today to reduce the CHCL fees to $50, offer CHCL licenses to vets and persons over 60 years old at only $25, and offer free licenses to those whom have obtained an order of protection. In before hbr says it sucks. No worries man. I have learned my lesson. I am not wired to be a lone voice in the wilderness. Ya'll go ahead and embrace this crap and find out what a quagmire it is. OK, Ill bite. What could possibly be wrong with reducing the price? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sen Jane English & Rep Andrea Lea have filed a bill today to reduce the CHCL fees to $50, offer CHCL licenses to vets and persons over 60 years old at only $25, and offer free licenses to those whom have obtained an order of protection. In before hbr says it sucks. No worries man. I have learned my lesson. I am not wired to be a lone voice in the wilderness. Ya'll go ahead and embrace this crap and find out what a quagmire it is. OK, Ill bite. What could possibly be wrong with reducing the price? I believe HBR's issue is that we shouldn't be compelled to pay in order to exercise a right guaranteed us by the US Constitution - hopefully he will correct me if I am wrong. |
|
Quoted: Well, since you DID askQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Sen Jane English & Rep Andrea Lea have filed a bill today to reduce the CHCL fees to $50, offer CHCL licenses to vets and persons over 60 years old at only $25, and offer free licenses to those whom have obtained an order of protection. In before hbr says it sucks. No worries man. I have learned my lesson. I am not wired to be a lone voice in the wilderness. Ya'll go ahead and embrace this crap and find out what a quagmire it is. OK, Ill bite. What could possibly be wrong with reducing the price? I believe HBR's issue is that we shouldn't be compelled to pay in order to exercise a right guaranteed us by the US Constitution - hopefully he will correct me if I am wrong.  : My objection is 3 fold. 1. We are ALL entitled to equal protection under law. If a law applies to any citizen, it MUST apply to all citizens equally. If one group gets a discount, ALL groups should receive the same discount. 2. It is repugnant to require licensure to exercise a right protected by law. We did not tolerate the levying of a poll tax in order to exercise the right to vote, nor would we tolerate requiring a license to own books, or attend worship, or to walk down that damned street. Tolerating the requirement to be licensed to keep and bear arms is equally repugnant. 3. A coalition is a fragile thing at best. The most effective means of breaking up a coalition is to offer some of the factions a "compromise." Once these factions accept these crumbs, they will lose the desire to continue the fight. Now the coalition disbands and nothing of importance is accomplished by it. If we, the coalition of gun owners, accept these crumbs from the legislature, we will lose the initiative and nothing of importance will have been gained. Besides, never never never allow the legislature to buy you off with what is already rightfully yours. In another thread a member asked why shouldn't we accept these crumbs and build on our success? There are two reasons: 1, the coalition will dissolve for the reasons previously offered and 2, most importantly, if we cave and accept that certain citizens should be allowed to arm themselves while others, equally deserving of that same freedom, are prohibited by law from arming themselves, what moral right will we have to object when one of those unarmed is murdered because they were subject to a law that we endorsed? Either we are ALL free Americans or none of us are. You are no more free than your neighbor. Stand up for his freedom or you will find yourself alone when it is time to defend yours. |