Supreme Court returns to firearms fray

Licensing fees are kind of stupid. I guess I could see them if they were only high enough to pay for the basics of a background check, etc... but just putting them way high as a way to discourage gun ownership is pretty dumb and basically accomplishes nothing.
 
Watermark said:
Licensing fees are kind of stupid. I guess I could see them if they were only high enough to pay for the basics of a background check, etc... but just putting them way high as a way to discourage gun ownership is pretty dumb and basically accomplishes nothing.
Click to expand...

Actually they accomplish people buying guns illegally because it's much cheaper.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Thing is, the right to bear arms does not guarantee an immunity to capitalism. The rise in prices of firearms by the manufacturers/distributors, and the State using taxes, license fees as a source of revenue is no different than any other commodity or service, etc.

I do agree with you, and think that this will go the way of the D.C. ruling.
Click to expand...

license fees for buying, ownership, or carrying will be ruled unconstitutional as well. Murdock v. comm. of PA
 
Taichiliberal said:
Thing is, the right to bear arms does not guarantee an immunity to capitalism. The rise in prices of firearms by the manufacturers/distributors, and the State using taxes, license fees as a source of revenue is no different than any other commodity or service, etc.

I do agree with you, and think that this will go the way of the D.C. ruling.
Click to expand...

This is not simple licensing and taxes, but... It is different because it is explicitly listed. Are the states allowed to license speech, press and religion?
 
RStringfield said:
This is not simple licensing and taxes, but... It is different because it is explicitly listed. Are the states allowed to license speech, press and religion?
Click to expand...

Actually, I guess they are to some degree, thanks to FDR and the left's bs on public airwaves.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Thing is, the right to bear arms does not guarantee an immunity to capitalism. The rise in prices of firearms by the manufacturers/distributors, and the State using taxes, license fees as a source of revenue is no different than any other commodity or service, etc.

I do agree with you, and think that this will go the way of the D.C. ruling.
Click to expand...

Watermark said:
Stupid conservative piece of shit.
Click to expand...

Don't bring your mother into this. Despite your repulsive bent of trying to defend creeps that sleep with children on another thread, I have the objectivity to display a logical assessment of this thread's subject, which happens to agree with you here.

Now take a deep breath, confirm that meeting with your psychiatrist, and take your meds before bed.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
Licensing fee themselves are constitutional. However when they put arms out of reach of your average citizen, then that becomes an infringement.
Click to expand...

Hell, man....you can say that about some seasonal produce and specialty items in the supermarkets. Here's a question....why balk about the license fees but NOT the actual price tags for the weapons, which get more pricey over the years?
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Thing is, the right to bear arms does not guarantee an immunity to capitalism. The rise in prices of firearms by the manufacturers/distributors, and the State using taxes, license fees as a source of revenue is no different than any other commodity or service, etc.

I do agree with you, and think that this will go the way of the D.C. ruling.
Click to expand...


RStringfield said:
This is not simple licensing and taxes, but... It is different because it is explicitly listed. Are the states allowed to license speech, press and religion?
Click to expand...

Actually, with regards to license cost, it is that simple. Why complain about the rise in license fees but NOT about the rise in the price tags of the actual purchase items (i.e., guns)? Your comparison of ownership of a weapon to free speech, press and religion is utter nonsense...like trying to compare an apple to a rock.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Thing is, the right to bear arms does not guarantee an immunity to capitalism. The rise in prices of firearms by the manufacturers/distributors, and the State using taxes, license fees as a source of revenue is no different than any other commodity or service, etc.

I do agree with you, and think that this will go the way of the D.C. ruling.
Click to expand...


SmarterThanYou said:
license fees for buying, ownership, or carrying will be ruled unconstitutional as well. Murdock v. comm. of PA
Click to expand...

Wishful thinking on your part, there is NO way you can build a bridge on this case (religious groups and their exemption status)to apply it to the buying/selling of weapons (intra or inner state)....like I told you before, this country is NOT going to reinvent the wheel by returning the days of the Wild West and turn of the century urban society so any joker with the bucks can buy a gun whenever, wherever they want, carry it whenever and wherever they want, and sell it to whomever they want without any type of federal regulation. We're the UNITED STATES of America....that means there are going to be some common rules and regulations for all to adhere to. As for guns.....been there, done that. And the beat goes on.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Hell, man....you can say that about some seasonal produce and specialty items in the supermarkets. Here's a question....why balk about the license fees but NOT the actual price tags for the weapons, which get more pricey over the years?
Click to expand...

Those have gone up because of a few things; Frivilous lawsuits against gun makers, increase in demand for manufacturing materials, and increase in military output, not to mention inflation. And added taxes on big manufacturers.

There are still plenty of cheap, reliable guns out there. And if not, message me, I can make them.
 
Watermark said:
Licensing fees are kind of stupid. I guess I could see them if they were only high enough to pay for the basics of a background check, etc... but just putting them way high as a way to discourage gun ownership is pretty dumb and basically accomplishes nothing.
Click to expand...

You pay for your license to drive a car, don't ya bunky? You also pay to get a license to be a professional plumber, real estate agent, etc. :chesh:
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Hell, man....you can say that about some seasonal produce and specialty items in the supermarkets. Here's a question....why balk about the license fees but NOT the actual price tags for the weapons, which get more pricey over the years?
Click to expand...

CaptBillyTheKid said:
Those have gone up because of a few things; Frivilous lawsuits against gun makers, increase in demand for manufacturing materials, and increase in military output, not to mention inflation. And added taxes on big manufacturers.



There are still plenty of cheap, reliable guns out there. And if not, message me, I can make them.
Click to expand...

Two corrections: there have NOT been significant amount of SUCCESSFUL lawsuits (or unsuccessful ones, for that matter) over years to cripple the gun manufacturing industry to the point where they are forced to raise their prices. This is the same bogus claim used by the medical insurance industry...which stats show just wasn't the case. And "taxes on big manufacturers" can be equated on taxes on produce, toy makers, airline industry etc. This goes along with what I was saying.....I don't hear gunners complaining about the rise in cost of the weapons, yet I hear/read a lot of guff about licenses. Now you and I both know that EVERYTHING has gone up in price over the years....so the lack of complaint signifys to me that the whole license cost thing is a complaint borne more of political/social ideology than actual expenses.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Actually, with regards to license cost, it is that simple. Why complain about the rise in license fees but NOT about the rise in the price tags of the actual purchase items (i.e., guns)? Your comparison of ownership of a weapon to free speech, press and religion is utter nonsense...like trying to compare an apple to a rock.
Click to expand...

Actually, its not utter nonsense. You are wanting to compare a government taxation with a business trying to make a product and a profit. The purpose of that particular tax would be to restrict a constitutionally guaranteed right. The purpose of the profit is to provide income for workers, stockholders, and company owners.

And the guns are not even close to badly priced. When you consider the average "life" of a decent gun is measured in decades, they are a fairly inexpensive item.


Also, wasn't the Poll Tax abolished because they were against using a tax to deny rights to citizens?

You needn't worry about a return to the "Wild West". That is what is threatened by anti-gun people every time significant gun laws get passed in favor of gun owners. Hasn't happened yet. In fact, even though gun laws have gotten more and more relaxed, and more and more states have "shall issue CCW laws, the violent crime rates are still dropping.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Two corrections: there have NOT been significant amount of SUCCESSFUL lawsuits (or unsuccessful ones, for that matter) over years to cripple the gun manufacturing industry to the point where they are forced to raise their prices. This is the same bogus claim used by the medical insurance industry...which stats show just wasn't the case. And "taxes on big manufacturers" can be equated on taxes on produce, toy makers, airline industry etc. This goes along with what I was saying.....I don't hear gunners complaining about the rise in cost of the weapons, yet I hear/read a lot of guff about licenses. Now you and I both know that EVERYTHING has gone up in price over the years....so the lack of complaint signifys to me that the whole license cost thing is a complaint borne more of political/social ideology than actual expenses.
Click to expand...

The complaints being aired right now are against a future use of taxes to put the purchases of guns out of reach of people.

And there are some, like me, who dislike the use of taxation as a form of punishment for not following a certain party line. And that is also what this tax would be.
 
Taichiliberal said:
You pay for your license to drive a car, don't ya bunky? You also pay to get a license to be a professional plumber, real estate agent, etc. :chesh:
Click to expand...

You pay for your licence to drive on government roads. You can drive all you want on private land without a licence.

You can also sell your home without having a real estate licence. And you can fix your own plumbing without having to have a licence.

No imagine that you had to pay for a licence before you could buy a plunger to unclog your toilet. That is closer to what we are talking about.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Two corrections: there have NOT been significant amount of SUCCESSFUL lawsuits (or unsuccessful ones, for that matter) over years to cripple the gun manufacturing industry to the point where they are forced to raise their prices. This is the same bogus claim used by the medical insurance industry...which stats show just wasn't the case. And "taxes on big manufacturers" can be equated on taxes on produce, toy makers, airline industry etc. This goes along with what I was saying.....I don't hear gunners complaining about the rise in cost of the weapons, yet I hear/read a lot of guff about licenses. Now you and I both know that EVERYTHING has gone up in price over the years....so the lack of complaint signifys to me that the whole license cost thing is a complaint borne more of political/social ideology than actual expenses.
Click to expand...

You obviously don't travel in a lot of gun circles then if you don't hear complaints about rising gun costs and ammo costs.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Actually, with regards to license cost, it is that simple. Why complain about the rise in license fees but NOT about the rise in the price tags of the actual purchase items (i.e., guns)? Your comparison of ownership of a weapon to free speech, press and religion is utter nonsense...like trying to compare an apple to a rock.
Click to expand...

WinterBorn said:
Actually, its not utter nonsense. You are wanting to compare a government taxation with a business trying to make a product and a profit. The purpose of that particular tax would be to restrict a constitutionally guaranteed right. The purpose of the profit is to provide income for workers, stockholders, and company owners.

Sorry, but neither you or anyone else can produce a piece of legislation that states the rise in a license fee is specificaly to restrict a right to buy a gun, let alone ANY constitutional right. License fees go up for plumbers....so your analogy just doesn't make sense. Also, stating the obvious about the purpose of profit still has nothing to do with the absurd notion of comparing license fees to buying/owning a gun to free speech, press or religion. Apples to rocks.

And the guns are not even close to badly priced. When you consider the average "life" of a decent gun is measured in decades, they are a fairly inexpensive item. Remember, I never said anything about "badly priced", I just pointed to the general acknowledgement that the price of weapons have gone up over the years. No complaints about that, but complaints about the license to own/purchase/sell one? Seems that they go hand in hand to me.


Also, wasn't the Poll Tax abolished because they were against using a tax to deny rights to citizens? Yes, because saner heads pointed out that you cannot tax the right to vote for an already established citizen. Which is my point....to compare the taxing/pricing of ownership of an item to the freedom of religion, the press or speech is just absurd. You pay for your driver's license, but you don't pay a tax to pray.

You needn't worry about a return to the "Wild West". That is what is threatened by anti-gun people every time significant gun laws get passed in favor of gun owners. It's not a threat....it's a logical deduction based on fact and history. Case in point: you have some jackasses toting guns to a town meeting/Presidential speech on healthcare. When no one else is doing that, the action is a meant to intimidate...plain and simple. There is NO need to give those of an even more moronic mindset cause to flex their potential. Add to this the documented cases of criminals using states with LESS stringent gun laws to purchase their wares to use in states with stricter rules, and that's appropo to what I am saying.Hasn't happened yet. And let's not give it a chance to happen by creating a atmosphere for it. In fact, even though gun laws have gotten more and more relaxed, and more and more states have "shall issue CCW laws, the violent crime rates are still dropping.
Click to expand...

Violent crime rates are dropping because of BETTER law enforcement, NOT because a bunch of wanna be Charles Bronsons are running around with packing heat. Compstat is a useful tool that is proving successful in every state it's applied in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top