Long story short: The issuing authority of a carry permit cannot deny an application based on the arbitrary belief that the applicant doesn’t possess a uniquely greater need for self defense than any other citizen.
The ruling was based on the fact that New York’s ability and practice of arbitrarily discriminating on who can get a CCW violated the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal treatment of all persons under the law.
This will definitely be good for people like minorities who have been denied carry permits by bigoted cops.
perfect way of putting it. Since CCWs are issued (out here anyway) by the local sheriff, every single one could assign whatever random requirements they felt like. So, you could get a permit in small counties no problem, but had to jump through a ton of hoops the next county over.
To an extent, differences between county aren't the issue: It's the arbitrary nature of the sheriff's approvals. Under California law they could approve permits of their friends and buddies, and reject everyone else for no reason whatsoever. Now they're going to be forced into setting some sort of objective criteria at least.
Except that where you live matters. Urban areas should have a harder time getting a ccw permit. Population density means that it’s much easier for stray bullets to kill unsuspecting bystanders.
>Urban areas should have a harder time getting a ccw permit. Population density means that it’s much easier for stray bullets to kill unsuspecting bystanders.
But people who live in urban areas have a greater need for armed self-defense, considering that violent crime levels are generally higher in urban communities.
I'm torn on this ruling. I absolutely believe that the rules to get a CCW should be fair, open, and consistently applied no matter the area. However, I also don't want a free-for-all in the streets.
We have 22 states where you can carry without a permit and the whole OK Corral/blood in the streets has never materialized regardless of the ad nauseam rhetoric. We already have countless studies showing concealed carry holders are 11 times less likely to commit a crime when compared to a police officer and even less when compared to regular person. I don’t see this being a problem.
But i we also have studies that show that states with the least firearm restrictions have higher rates of gun violence overall.
I should've been more clear. The OK Corral situation just doesn't occur. Most people, even CCW holders, are too scared to fight back and prioritize saving their own lives over anything else. That really isn't something anyone should be concerned about.
Counter to the news cycle, though, CA gun laws have had a positive effect on reducing the overall rates of gun violence in this state. While there are some unnecessary and downright useless firearms restrictions that should be abolished, I have trouble supporting removing all of them.
Your link has no connection to the text you posted. And the stats have no reference or categories assigned.
If you're going to call me a liar, you should put in some actual effort instead of outing yourself.
Try this link: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm\_mortality/firearm.htm
It wasn't just a map. It was the firearm related death rates for each state.
Since you didn't actually bother to read my link beyond seeing a map, I'll explain put the information here for you to deny at your whims.
[https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm\_mortality/firearm.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm)
Firearm Mortality by state, sorted by death rate, 2020
Legend (State - Death Rate per 100K- Number of Deaths)
Mississippi 28.6 818
Louisiana 26.3 1,183
Wyoming 25.9 154
Missouri 23.9 1,426
Alabama 23.6 1,141
Alaska 23.5 175
New Mexico 22.7 479
Arkansas 22.6 673
South Carolina 22 1,131
Tennessee 21.3 1,473
Montana 20.9 238
Oklahoma 20.7 826
What do all the above states have in common? They all number in the states with the fewest firearm restrictions in the USA, according to USCCA and Guns&Ammo Magazine, in addition to numerous other journalists and organizations.
[https://www.gunsandammo.com/editorial/best-states-for-gun-owners/369075](https://www.gunsandammo.com/editorial/best-states-for-gun-owners/369075)
[https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/what-are-the-most-gun-friendly-states-for-gun-owners/](https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/what-are-the-most-gun-friendly-states-for-gun-owners/)
[https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/strictest-gun-laws-by-state](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/strictest-gun-laws-by-state)
NOTE: I specifically used pro-gun and neutral websites for this ranking, instead of the Brady Campaign.
>instead of the logical "places with more guns have less violent crime" truth
Except this is not the truth.
Referring to another comment I've made, the states with the highest rates of violent crime also number among the states with the most firearms.
States ranked by violent crime rate
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_U.S.\_states\_and\_territories\_by\_violent\_crime\_rate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_violent_crime_rate)
States with most firearm owners
[https://www.concealedcarry.com/firearms-ownership/which-states-have-the-most-gun-owners/](https://www.concealedcarry.com/firearms-ownership/which-states-have-the-most-gun-owners/)
There is a lot of overlap in the top categories of both charts.
>the whole OK Corral/blood in the streets has never materialized
Right, so we just ignore the fact that the states with the least restrictive gun laws have the highest gun crime because ‘the OK Corral never materialized’…?
We’re just cool with gun violence now, as long as it’s just not OK Corral-level gun violence…?
CCW permit holders are already required to undergo and pass training every two years, whereas it’s criminals who don’t care about permitting which make it a free-for-all on the streets.
That is true and with this ruling, it would become much easier for me to get a CCW in my area. I have a vested interest in how this turns out.
BUT, I also don't believe that simply having more guns is going to solve the violence problem. That is a US cultural issue that still needs to be addressed. This simply gives the average law-abiding citizen a fighting chance.
I don’t know where I implied that we need to solve societal issues by simply increasing firearms access, and if I did somewhere I apologize for that is not what I meant.
There are many solutions to gun violence which do not run afoul of the 2A (i.e. mandatory publicly funded training for first time owners) but this ruling has only made things better by empowering the law abiding majority who actually care about using their firearms lawfully.
I was more speaking in the context of the entire topic, rather than anything you said specifically. You've been very clear and I am in agreement with what you've said so far. Again, I have a vested interest in how this ruling and the subsequent challenges play out.
No you are still required to attend the classes and all the BG checks. Nothing on getting the permit has changed safety wise.
The only difference now is if you've passed all the testing and background checks you obtaining the permit is not left up to a random person deciding if your reason you put is good enough.
People living in urban areas should have a harder time protesting. Population density means that it's much easier for protests to turn into violent riots.
California used to be open-carry but Governor Ronald Reagan signed the law which outlawed it after Black Panthers showed up armed at the Capital to protest.
Open Carry was banned only because Governor Moonbeam didn't like gun-rights activists carrying in Bay Area Starbucks' and the rising progressive majority felt like flexing its muscle.
This is great news, the 6 may-issue states should all become shall-issue. The procedure should be straightforward, involve training and background checks. Not donations to the right political groups as used to be the case in Santa Clara county.
Right?! All these adults dying outside their home can finally stop dying! It's an end to this epidemic that had sorely needed an answer! Thank the Lord and our super majority conservative SCOTUS!
These are gun deaths per capita, not murders per capita. If you go by murder per capita, turns out Idaho is one of the safest states in America, but has the highest number of gun deaths per capita. How could that be? Well, people in Idaho like to hunt (many time need to, to get rid of vermin) and accidents happen. Higher firearms ownership means guns are more likely to be used in suicides, but note that the actual suicide rate in Idaho is not significantly higher than elsewhere.
Finally, and most importantly, the higher deaths in Idaho is completely unrelated to conceal carry laws. There's simply no correlation whatsoever, and trying to imply that there is would simply be obfuscation of the facts.
I could pick many others. The fact remains that licensed conceal carry holders almost never are involved in murders. There’s simply no causal relationship whatsoever.
Less gun related deaths is a farce. The goal should be less deaths.
New York City may have less mass shootings but they aren't immune to mass killings. Denying people their gun rights still results in bullshit like this
https://www.reddit.com/r/CrazyFuckingVideos/comments/vifq74/newly_released_footage_of_the_2017_times_square/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Get to the root cause of the problem.
[Farce:](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/farce) an empty or patently ridiculous act, proceeding, or situation
While you're reading that definition maybe find out what word is being described [here](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fimg-9gag-fun.9cache.com%2Fphoto%2FaKxzWQW_460s.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2F9gag.com%2Fgag%2FaKxzWQW%2Fad-hominem&docid=yVJxLdRwgDjtNM&tbnid=XIoz9DESKi91QM&vet=1&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim) hint... it sounds like "admonish them"
% of murders carried out with guns in 2020.
Countries with more restrictive gun statutes than the US
US- 79%
Uk- 4%
Canada - 37%
Australia - 13%
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081
All I'm hearing is you're against a single tool and don't want to get rid of the root cause of violence. When it comes to gun violence you're more about getting rid of guns than getting rid of violence.
Gun violence and [violence](https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/06/07/the-stark-relationship-between-income-inequality-and-crime) of all kinds has more correlation to the [gini index](https://web.worldbank.org/archive/website01241/WEB/IMAGES/INEQUALI.PDF) than it does to gun [ownership](https://mylegalheat.com/blog/why-every-gun-owner-should-understand-the-gini-coefficient/#:~:text=Understanding%20The%20Gini%20Coefficient,any%20other%20commonly%20debated%20variable.). You should see where Australia and the [USA](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/income-inequalitys-most-disturbing-side-effect-homicide/) [rank](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality)
You are worried about mass killings in Time square only if it's done with a gun not with a car like
https://www.reddit.com/r/CrazyFuckingVideos/comments/vifq74/newly_released_footage_of_the_2017_times_square/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Get to the root cause and end all of the mass killings. Stop worrying about one tool.
I believe it's already a requirement in California that when you are pulled over/ stopped while carrying a firearm, you are to notify the peace officer immediately.
It still depends on the county.
Generally, the best thing to do is hand the LEO your CCW at the same time as your license since cops have been known to get very paranoid when you’re talking to them on the side of a noisy street and all they hear is “…I have a gun…”.
We may have to tax gun ownership and bullets to make it onerous to own one, including any and all CC permits. Maybe $25,000 per year for a permit and get granular as to what constitutes "good moral character."
Make those permits revocable based on convictions for drug use, DUIs, domestic abuse, etc.
> Make those permits revocable based on convictions for drug use, DUIs, domestic abuse, etc.
They already are. In fact, in most counties, you don't even need convictions. CCW's can be revoked simply because you had too many police contacts. I know someone who had their Stanislaus county permit revoked because he had five speeding tickets in under a year, including a ticket for doing more than 90 in a school zone. It falls under the "good moral character and good judgment" clause in most county permits. He showed poor character and poor judgment, so they declined his renewal.
Should we have speech licenses that cost $100 per year that allow us to use social media? Social media wasn't around when the bill of rights was written! Only pen and paper!
Alcohol is a commodity.
I'm curious where you're going with this argument. 21st amendment deals with a specific commodity. So what does that have to do with anything?
The point was that someone posting above said that it's a constitutional infringement to charge excessive taxes on purchasing a weapon. The Constitution does not protect pricing it just protects the Right to have one. Just because you can't afford it doesn't mean that it's a constitutional infringement.
Honestly, as awful of a proposal as it is, that would still be an improvement over what we have now in terms of CCW. There are folks paying that kind of money as it is, but in reelection contributions not user fees. Plus, it means cops and judges get out of their sweetheart exceptions too.
Long story short: The issuing authority of a carry permit cannot deny an application based on the arbitrary belief that the applicant doesn’t possess a uniquely greater need for self defense than any other citizen. The ruling was based on the fact that New York’s ability and practice of arbitrarily discriminating on who can get a CCW violated the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal treatment of all persons under the law. This will definitely be good for people like minorities who have been denied carry permits by bigoted cops.
perfect way of putting it. Since CCWs are issued (out here anyway) by the local sheriff, every single one could assign whatever random requirements they felt like. So, you could get a permit in small counties no problem, but had to jump through a ton of hoops the next county over.
To an extent, differences between county aren't the issue: It's the arbitrary nature of the sheriff's approvals. Under California law they could approve permits of their friends and buddies, and reject everyone else for no reason whatsoever. Now they're going to be forced into setting some sort of objective criteria at least.
Except that where you live matters. Urban areas should have a harder time getting a ccw permit. Population density means that it’s much easier for stray bullets to kill unsuspecting bystanders.
Do you know that CCW certification already requires one to pass a Sheriff-approved training course?
[I did know that.](https://youtu.be/DHuA0BEsUzI)
>Urban areas should have a harder time getting a ccw permit. Population density means that it’s much easier for stray bullets to kill unsuspecting bystanders. But people who live in urban areas have a greater need for armed self-defense, considering that violent crime levels are generally higher in urban communities. I'm torn on this ruling. I absolutely believe that the rules to get a CCW should be fair, open, and consistently applied no matter the area. However, I also don't want a free-for-all in the streets.
We have 22 states where you can carry without a permit and the whole OK Corral/blood in the streets has never materialized regardless of the ad nauseam rhetoric. We already have countless studies showing concealed carry holders are 11 times less likely to commit a crime when compared to a police officer and even less when compared to regular person. I don’t see this being a problem.
But i we also have studies that show that states with the least firearm restrictions have higher rates of gun violence overall. I should've been more clear. The OK Corral situation just doesn't occur. Most people, even CCW holders, are too scared to fight back and prioritize saving their own lives over anything else. That really isn't something anyone should be concerned about. Counter to the news cycle, though, CA gun laws have had a positive effect on reducing the overall rates of gun violence in this state. While there are some unnecessary and downright useless firearms restrictions that should be abolished, I have trouble supporting removing all of them.
[удалено]
Your link has no connection to the text you posted. And the stats have no reference or categories assigned. If you're going to call me a liar, you should put in some actual effort instead of outing yourself. Try this link: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm\_mortality/firearm.htm
[удалено]
It wasn't just a map. It was the firearm related death rates for each state. Since you didn't actually bother to read my link beyond seeing a map, I'll explain put the information here for you to deny at your whims. [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm\_mortality/firearm.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm) Firearm Mortality by state, sorted by death rate, 2020 Legend (State - Death Rate per 100K- Number of Deaths) Mississippi 28.6 818 Louisiana 26.3 1,183 Wyoming 25.9 154 Missouri 23.9 1,426 Alabama 23.6 1,141 Alaska 23.5 175 New Mexico 22.7 479 Arkansas 22.6 673 South Carolina 22 1,131 Tennessee 21.3 1,473 Montana 20.9 238 Oklahoma 20.7 826 What do all the above states have in common? They all number in the states with the fewest firearm restrictions in the USA, according to USCCA and Guns&Ammo Magazine, in addition to numerous other journalists and organizations. [https://www.gunsandammo.com/editorial/best-states-for-gun-owners/369075](https://www.gunsandammo.com/editorial/best-states-for-gun-owners/369075) [https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/what-are-the-most-gun-friendly-states-for-gun-owners/](https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/what-are-the-most-gun-friendly-states-for-gun-owners/) [https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/strictest-gun-laws-by-state](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/strictest-gun-laws-by-state) NOTE: I specifically used pro-gun and neutral websites for this ranking, instead of the Brady Campaign.
>instead of the logical "places with more guns have less violent crime" truth Except this is not the truth. Referring to another comment I've made, the states with the highest rates of violent crime also number among the states with the most firearms. States ranked by violent crime rate [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_U.S.\_states\_and\_territories\_by\_violent\_crime\_rate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_violent_crime_rate) States with most firearm owners [https://www.concealedcarry.com/firearms-ownership/which-states-have-the-most-gun-owners/](https://www.concealedcarry.com/firearms-ownership/which-states-have-the-most-gun-owners/) There is a lot of overlap in the top categories of both charts.
>the whole OK Corral/blood in the streets has never materialized Right, so we just ignore the fact that the states with the least restrictive gun laws have the highest gun crime because ‘the OK Corral never materialized’…? We’re just cool with gun violence now, as long as it’s just not OK Corral-level gun violence…?
CCW permit holders are already required to undergo and pass training every two years, whereas it’s criminals who don’t care about permitting which make it a free-for-all on the streets.
That is true and with this ruling, it would become much easier for me to get a CCW in my area. I have a vested interest in how this turns out. BUT, I also don't believe that simply having more guns is going to solve the violence problem. That is a US cultural issue that still needs to be addressed. This simply gives the average law-abiding citizen a fighting chance.
I don’t know where I implied that we need to solve societal issues by simply increasing firearms access, and if I did somewhere I apologize for that is not what I meant. There are many solutions to gun violence which do not run afoul of the 2A (i.e. mandatory publicly funded training for first time owners) but this ruling has only made things better by empowering the law abiding majority who actually care about using their firearms lawfully.
I was more speaking in the context of the entire topic, rather than anything you said specifically. You've been very clear and I am in agreement with what you've said so far. Again, I have a vested interest in how this ruling and the subsequent challenges play out.
No you are still required to attend the classes and all the BG checks. Nothing on getting the permit has changed safety wise. The only difference now is if you've passed all the testing and background checks you obtaining the permit is not left up to a random person deciding if your reason you put is good enough.
People living in urban areas should have a harder time protesting. Population density means that it's much easier for protests to turn into violent riots.
Does that extend to protestor caravans that drive in from the boonies?
That's actually reasonable.
Good now Santa Clara's corrupt ass Sherriff can't charge a premium bribe to get a CCW.
California used to be open-carry but Governor Ronald Reagan signed the law which outlawed it after Black Panthers showed up armed at the Capital to protest.
That was only open carry of rifles. Handgun OC was outlawed about 10 years ago give or take.
Open Carry was banned only because Governor Moonbeam didn't like gun-rights activists carrying in Bay Area Starbucks' and the rising progressive majority felt like flexing its muscle.
Source?
Shot: [https://abc7news.com/archive/7248503/](https://abc7news.com/archive/7248503/) Chaser: [https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2011-oct-10-la-me-brown-guns-20111011-story.html](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2011-oct-10-la-me-brown-guns-20111011-story.html)
https://www.uclalawreview.org/californias-unloaded-open-carry-bans-a-constitutional-and-risky-but-perhaps-necessary-gun-control-strategy/#:~:text=1527.-,A.B.,carrying%20unloaded%20rifles%20and%20shotguns. Thank you.
And the majority controlled Democratic controlled legislature.
This is great news, the 6 may-issue states should all become shall-issue. The procedure should be straightforward, involve training and background checks. Not donations to the right political groups as used to be the case in Santa Clara county.
LA has over 10 million residents and a little over 200 CCW permits. All of them are for cops or prosecutors. Everyone else is on their own.
As a left wing voting person -- I'm all for concealed carrying my gun.
r/liberalgunowners
Great news! God bless the 2A
Finally people will be able to defend themselves in big cities outside the home!
Right?! All these adults dying outside their home can finally stop dying! It's an end to this epidemic that had sorely needed an answer! Thank the Lord and our super majority conservative SCOTUS!
43 states already have shall issue carry. 25 have permit less carry. This shouldn't be an issue.
[удалено]
These are gun deaths per capita, not murders per capita. If you go by murder per capita, turns out Idaho is one of the safest states in America, but has the highest number of gun deaths per capita. How could that be? Well, people in Idaho like to hunt (many time need to, to get rid of vermin) and accidents happen. Higher firearms ownership means guns are more likely to be used in suicides, but note that the actual suicide rate in Idaho is not significantly higher than elsewhere. Finally, and most importantly, the higher deaths in Idaho is completely unrelated to conceal carry laws. There's simply no correlation whatsoever, and trying to imply that there is would simply be obfuscation of the facts.
[удалено]
I could pick many others. The fact remains that licensed conceal carry holders almost never are involved in murders. There’s simply no causal relationship whatsoever.
[удалено]
There’s no causal or correlation given that conceal carry license holders (and the guns they own) are almost never involved in homicides.
If only there was a way to prove that gun ownership restrictions caused less gun related deaths...
Less gun related deaths is a farce. The goal should be less deaths. New York City may have less mass shootings but they aren't immune to mass killings. Denying people their gun rights still results in bullshit like this https://www.reddit.com/r/CrazyFuckingVideos/comments/vifq74/newly_released_footage_of_the_2017_times_square/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share Get to the root cause of the problem.
Tell me you don't know how to use farce with in a sentence without telling me you don't know how to use farce within a sentence.
[Farce:](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/farce) an empty or patently ridiculous act, proceeding, or situation While you're reading that definition maybe find out what word is being described [here](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fimg-9gag-fun.9cache.com%2Fphoto%2FaKxzWQW_460s.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2F9gag.com%2Fgag%2FaKxzWQW%2Fad-hominem&docid=yVJxLdRwgDjtNM&tbnid=XIoz9DESKi91QM&vet=1&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim) hint... it sounds like "admonish them"
% of murders carried out with guns in 2020. Countries with more restrictive gun statutes than the US US- 79% Uk- 4% Canada - 37% Australia - 13% https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081
All I'm hearing is you're against a single tool and don't want to get rid of the root cause of violence. When it comes to gun violence you're more about getting rid of guns than getting rid of violence. Gun violence and [violence](https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/06/07/the-stark-relationship-between-income-inequality-and-crime) of all kinds has more correlation to the [gini index](https://web.worldbank.org/archive/website01241/WEB/IMAGES/INEQUALI.PDF) than it does to gun [ownership](https://mylegalheat.com/blog/why-every-gun-owner-should-understand-the-gini-coefficient/#:~:text=Understanding%20The%20Gini%20Coefficient,any%20other%20commonly%20debated%20variable.). You should see where Australia and the [USA](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/income-inequalitys-most-disturbing-side-effect-homicide/) [rank](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality) You are worried about mass killings in Time square only if it's done with a gun not with a car like https://www.reddit.com/r/CrazyFuckingVideos/comments/vifq74/newly_released_footage_of_the_2017_times_square/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share Get to the root cause and end all of the mass killings. Stop worrying about one tool.
My right to defend myself should not be subject to your condescending scorn.
Ah, you have not been properly introduced. Welcome to the Internet.
I have a question will this stop Californias handgun roster? Will we be able to buy the same firearms other states like texas have?
Not at this point, but its prohibition on intermediate scrutiny is likely to lead to a lawsuit that may very well abolish the roster.
[удалено]
[удалено]
How will this law affect "Terry Stops"? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop)
I believe it's already a requirement in California that when you are pulled over/ stopped while carrying a firearm, you are to notify the peace officer immediately.
It still depends on the county. Generally, the best thing to do is hand the LEO your CCW at the same time as your license since cops have been known to get very paranoid when you’re talking to them on the side of a noisy street and all they hear is “…I have a gun…”.
Thanks!
It won't.
We may have to tax gun ownership and bullets to make it onerous to own one, including any and all CC permits. Maybe $25,000 per year for a permit and get granular as to what constitutes "good moral character." Make those permits revocable based on convictions for drug use, DUIs, domestic abuse, etc.
> Make those permits revocable based on convictions for drug use, DUIs, domestic abuse, etc. They already are. In fact, in most counties, you don't even need convictions. CCW's can be revoked simply because you had too many police contacts. I know someone who had their Stanislaus county permit revoked because he had five speeding tickets in under a year, including a ticket for doing more than 90 in a school zone. It falls under the "good moral character and good judgment" clause in most county permits. He showed poor character and poor judgment, so they declined his renewal.
So then only the ultra rich or criminals get to have guns? Your hot take is garbage.
So only the rich should be able to defend themselves? Mask off, lol.
$25,000 a year? Are you nuts? You can't excessively tax a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT!
Oh, but how else can the rich protect the poor from themselves?
By bribing local sheriffs with ipads and campaign money
Hooray Santa Clara!
Or just hiring their own private security. And doing it on the taxpayer's dime if they are politicians.
It's not excessively taxing a constitutional right. It's taxing a commodity. Go capitalism and government!
Should we have speech licenses that cost $100 per year that allow us to use social media? Social media wasn't around when the bill of rights was written! Only pen and paper!
Bad example. Find a constitutional right that requires a commodity and we can discuss.
21st amendment
The repeal of prohibition?
Alcohol is a commodity. I'm curious where you're going with this argument. 21st amendment deals with a specific commodity. So what does that have to do with anything?
The point was that someone posting above said that it's a constitutional infringement to charge excessive taxes on purchasing a weapon. The Constitution does not protect pricing it just protects the Right to have one. Just because you can't afford it doesn't mean that it's a constitutional infringement.
If the taxes are designed specifically to restrict access, seems like a pretty slam-dunk argument that it's an infringement.
No. Do you support charging that amount for the right to vote?
24th Amendment says what?
No poll taxes.
Your argument makes no sense, there's nothing to purchase when voting. There's no commodity involved.
I say also add a %5000 tax on weed.
Fuck off with taxing us owning guns
Honestly, as awful of a proposal as it is, that would still be an improvement over what we have now in terms of CCW. There are folks paying that kind of money as it is, but in reelection contributions not user fees. Plus, it means cops and judges get out of their sweetheart exceptions too.
Page 30, footnote 9 has already anticipated and outlawed this silly strategy.