Posted on Apr 19, 2016
Should government charge a $1000 fee for people to protest?
11.4K
35
35
8
8
0
Should all journalists register with the government before writing?
If the answer is no, why would it be ok to do the same with Guns? I'm not a gun owner and probably never be one but I'm a firm believer of the constitution.
Many states and local governments have or are imposing taxes on legal gun ownership.
http://www.mvariety.com/cnmi/cnmi-news/local/85286-new-gun-control-law-imposes-1-000-excise-tax-on-pistols
What are your thoughts?
If the answer is no, why would it be ok to do the same with Guns? I'm not a gun owner and probably never be one but I'm a firm believer of the constitution.
Many states and local governments have or are imposing taxes on legal gun ownership.
http://www.mvariety.com/cnmi/cnmi-news/local/85286-new-gun-control-law-imposes-1-000-excise-tax-on-pistols
What are your thoughts?
Rights
Freedom of Speech
Protest
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 13
4
4
0
"Poll Tax"
Although we already have excise taxes on firearms (it's about $40~ on many handguns) and MANY other items like tires, that doesn't make it correct.
It's the Government attempting to reduce the usage of a Protection through invest Power. There is no other way to look at it than Infringement. It's breaking the "big rules."
Nothing says the Government can't Tax. It's one of their Powers. Nothing says the Government can't Tax Arms (et al). It's when that Taxation becomes Infringement that we have a problem. There's a lot of gray area in there.
Like Voter ID laws. If you give everyone an ID for FREE, it is "generally" not considered Infringement. When you make them "jump through hoops" to get an ID (as in have multiple proofs of residency, and multiple proofs of identity to get an approved ID), then we step into Infringement territory.
The same happens with Arms. If we look ONLY at the Cost aspect, assuming that other regulatory aspects are met (like ID requirements), at what % does it become a "Financial Infringement?" Or is it a % at all, and a dollar figure instead?
Normally when we look at Background Checks, the Government puts verbiage into the Law that says "no more than $X will be charged for the completion of a Background Check to cover associated fees." This is to ensure that they are NOT Infringing, but instead "recouping cost of program" which is reasonable. Services do cost money after all. But we know that no Background Check costs $1000.00, therefore it is an Infringement.
cc Capt Mark Strobl Capt Richard I P.
Although we already have excise taxes on firearms (it's about $40~ on many handguns) and MANY other items like tires, that doesn't make it correct.
It's the Government attempting to reduce the usage of a Protection through invest Power. There is no other way to look at it than Infringement. It's breaking the "big rules."
Nothing says the Government can't Tax. It's one of their Powers. Nothing says the Government can't Tax Arms (et al). It's when that Taxation becomes Infringement that we have a problem. There's a lot of gray area in there.
Like Voter ID laws. If you give everyone an ID for FREE, it is "generally" not considered Infringement. When you make them "jump through hoops" to get an ID (as in have multiple proofs of residency, and multiple proofs of identity to get an approved ID), then we step into Infringement territory.
The same happens with Arms. If we look ONLY at the Cost aspect, assuming that other regulatory aspects are met (like ID requirements), at what % does it become a "Financial Infringement?" Or is it a % at all, and a dollar figure instead?
Normally when we look at Background Checks, the Government puts verbiage into the Law that says "no more than $X will be charged for the completion of a Background Check to cover associated fees." This is to ensure that they are NOT Infringing, but instead "recouping cost of program" which is reasonable. Services do cost money after all. But we know that no Background Check costs $1000.00, therefore it is an Infringement.
cc Capt Mark Strobl Capt Richard I P.
(4)
(0)
1
1
0
Good question Sir. We same thing with showing ID, right? People say that requiring voters to show ID is an infringement of their constitutional right. So therefore, no one should have to show an ID to purchase a firearm either.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
The 2nd amendment, however, has no such stipulations. Those were enacted by Congressional Acts and are not ratified by the states
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
And BTW, I think 18 is too young to vote...one should be at least 30 before pretending to know anything about politics
(2)
(0)
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
PO1 Robert Payne - True. Now all we have to do is convince the Supreme Court of that fact...who gave themselves the power to interpret the Constitution a couple hundred years ago.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Interesting thought, But I think the government is in our pockets way too much as it is.
(1)
(0)
SSgt Terry P.
PO2 Mark Saffell Ah,but,Mark, look at the great services that are provided.
Just couldn't help myself. lol
Just couldn't help myself. lol
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Sir, Major Michael Brewer the reason why liberals want to register guns is so that the GOVERNMENT can take them when the government starts to act like Nazi Germany and the Former USSR. and CHINA (Chairman Mao)
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
A financial hurdle to exercising a protected right is as unconstitutional as any other hurdle. If someone files a lawsuit, it will be struck down.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Where are they charging that much to own a gun? I would agree with you however the problem comes down to politics and the people. Guns are a very volatile topic right now. If you sued the state over this you could probably push it an win, but then the politicians will most likely find some other way to appease the anti-gun masses.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Think about it with the amount of guns in this country if they imposed a "fee" on newly purchased guns. This country would out of debt in a heartbeat!!
The constitutions Doesnt say you can't tax guns it says you have the right to bear arms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Doesn't mention free arms, just free state!
But it does say: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Caught the word FREE!!
The constitutions Doesnt say you can't tax guns it says you have the right to bear arms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Doesn't mention free arms, just free state!
But it does say: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Caught the word FREE!!
(0)
(0)
Col (Join to see)
I think the free in "free state" doesn't mean free of charge but i get your point. Since voting is a right but not explicitly outlined as being free, shouldn't the government impose a fee to vote ...if you want it counted? You are free to vote as part of your freedom of expression but a fee will be imposed if you want it to be counted.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
It's been said a million times. The federal (and some state) government is getting more and more and more invasive with the lives of Americans, at the job and at home. While doing so, they illegally ignore or legally misinterpret existing laws and regulations. To whom is that one, still, small voice to complain? Who will listen? If Hillary is elected, the Second Amendment will be attack mercilessly. For starters.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
They also impose fees aka taxes on drivers licenses
Hunting licenses
Fishing Licenses
Marriage Licenses
License Plates for your vehicles.
Pet Licenses
and a host of other license I cannot think of at this very moment.
Hunting licenses
Fishing Licenses
Marriage Licenses
License Plates for your vehicles.
Pet Licenses
and a host of other license I cannot think of at this very moment.
(0)
(0)
Col (Join to see)
Yes there are tons of licenses but I don't think driving, hunting, even marriage is a constitutional right.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
A bit more information and background:
http://www.stripes.com/news/navy-veteran-takes-on-saipan-s-restriction-on-handguns-1.335594
http://www.stripes.com/news/navy-veteran-takes-on-saipan-s-restriction-on-handguns-1.335594
Navy veteran takes on Saipan's restriction on handguns
A Navy veteran and his wife are challenging a ban on handguns in Saipan, arguing in federal court that the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands is bound by the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google