Supreme Court returns to firearms fray

[Taichiliberal]

There is no veiled threat. I was correcting your statement of what creates an atmosphere of violence.



"There is no "huge" increase....all one has to do is compare the number of actual CCW permits to that of the general population of each state, county, etc. to see what I say is true. An increase in CCW has NOT reached a point of significance to the general population. Also, since there are LAWS regarding who receives such permits (background checks, etc.), we are NOT talking about something akin to buying a used car. What you've done here is a typical distortion/exaggeration most gunners use for an uniformed public that doesn't apply common sense and general information to a situation."

No huge increase? I think you are discussing a subject that you know little about.

Florida has a population of around 18 million. There are over 1 million have concealed carry permits. That is a huge number of people. Hmmm, the last time I looked at 2002 stats on this, it was about 300,000 for Florida. What's your source material?

Since the early 1990s, 35 states have enacted "shall issue" laws fdor CCW permits, and yet the violent crime rates have gone down. I've addressed this, more cops and better police tactics are the results of crime going down in America....states with lax gun laws are used by criminals for easier purchase of weapons used in other states. Just because a state has a CCW "shall issue" has NOT automatically produced massive increases ownership in those states.

It is a significant part of the population in many states.

Source material to back up this claim, please?




"Are you saying that the general fees for a plumber's license have NOT gone up in the last 25 years? Sorry, that is not true....they may not be on the same rate increase, but both go up over time."

I have said absolutely nothing of the kind. Go back and read, because you imply such with your statements. My point has never been about an increase in the price of a plumbing licence. My point is that a licence to be a professional plumber has nothing to do with this topic.

Remember, YOU introduced the analogy, not me. I just took it to the logical conclusion to demonstrate the flaw in your assessment.

 

[Socrtease]

I have had my ear to the ground since the announcement. Quietly, and not so quietly, gun control groups are telling their activist people to get ready for a resounding defeat. Good riddence to stupid bans.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I've addressed this, more cops and better police tactics are the results of crime going down in America....states with lax gun laws are used by criminals for easier purchase of weapons used in other states. Just because a state has a CCW "shall issue" has NOT automatically produced massive increases ownership in those states.

the ATF has said that it takes about 10 years for a gun purchased from another state to have been used illegally in another. that's hardly indicative of lax gun laws contributing to crime in other states.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Actually, I was wrong in my blanket statement....but you are not 100% correct in yours. Case in point, silencers (or noise suppression devices).....it depends on what state you are in, as 35 states allow make it legal for the average joe. The catch is it's a whole set of different back ground checks for those that do allow it (if you pass the local police, state and federal background check). We're talking fingerprints, etc. It makes all the whining and foot stamping about the Brady Bill look like an I.D. check at your local dance club by a bouncer.

I fully understand the requirements for NFA items. I'm undergoing the process right now. And it's more than 35. Last I checked I believe it's 45. But I could be mistaken.

 

[christiefan915]

then not only will anti gunners and liberals show their disdain for the rule of law, but any ruling that contradicts Murdock v. PA (to wit: no state shall charge a license, fee, or tax for the enjoyment of a right protected by the constitution) will basically make the ussc and any lower court irrelevant.

I read Murdock v. PA and am a little confused about how it applies to guns. It seems to apply strictly to licensing religious groups. Has it been used in gun cases?

Murdock is a landmark decision which had the effect of allowing Jehovah's Witnesses and other religious groups who sold literature door-to-door to avoid paying licensing taxes to distribute their literature. The neutral imposition of the tax on solicitation performed by a religious group did not make it constitutionally acceptable. In addition, the Court drew a distinction between commercial activity and religious activity that involves the selling of religious literature.

 

[Taichiliberal]

the ATF has said that it takes about 10 years for a gun purchased from another state to have been used illegally in another. that's hardly indicative of lax gun laws contributing to crime in other states.

I'd like to see that report....because the Virginia to New York pipeline for illegal use of weapons did not and does not fit that time line.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
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.

then not only will anti gunners and liberals show their disdain for the rule of law, but any ruling that contradicts Murdock v. PA (to wit: no state shall charge a license, fee, or tax for the enjoyment of a right protected by the constitution) will basically make the ussc and any lower court irrelevant.

Again, there is NO WAY you can build a bridge from a case dealing SPECIFICALLY with a religious group and the application of exemption status to your usual gunner propaganda. Your attempt to take "out of context" the WHOLE ruling and what/how it's applied is typical of the myopia gunner's have when they feel threatened. Here's a true legal discussion as to what went down and why.

http://www.constitution.org/ussc/319-105a.htm

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I read Murdock v. PA and am a little confused about how it applies to guns. It seems to apply strictly to licensing religious groups. Has it been used in gun cases?

Murdock is a landmark decision which had the effect of allowing Jehovah's Witnesses and other religious groups who sold literature door-to-door to avoid paying licensing taxes to distribute their literature. The neutral imposition of the tax on solicitation performed by a religious group did not make it constitutionally acceptable. In addition, the Court drew a distinction between commercial activity and religious activity that involves the selling of religious literature.

then you either skipped over most of it or you didn't read it all. In the decision, it clearly states that 'no state may charge a license, fee, or tax for the enjoyment of a right protected by the constitution'. unless you still consider the 2nd amendment a right of the states instead of an individual right, that is.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Again, there is NO WAY you can build a bridge from a case dealing SPECIFICALLY with a religious group and the application of exemption status to your usual gunner propaganda. Your attempt to take "out of context" the WHOLE ruling and what/how it's applied is typical of the myopia gunner's have when they feel threatened. Here's a true legal discussion as to what went down and why.

http://www.constitution.org/ussc/319-105a.htm

as usual you are stuck completely on the specifics instead of the decision itself, kind of like being unable to see the forest for the trees. This case dealt with license fees and taxes for the enjoyment of a protected right. a license fee or tax designed to impede one's enjoyment of a right.

 

[Timshel]

My comment...

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?

Actually, with regards to license cost, it is that simple.

The point of the statement was... This case is not about simple licensing and taxes. It is about a handgun ban.

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.

The comparison is that these are all protected under the constitution. What about that fact are you unable to make sense? Driving and plumbing are not protected under the constitution (edit: not explicitly). It's your comparisons that are nonsense.

 

[Taichiliberal]

as usual you are stuck completely on the specifics instead of the decision itself, kind of like being unable to see the forest for the trees. . a license fee or tax designed to impede one's enjoyment of a right.

Oh puh-leeze....it's YOU are taking out-of-context THE SUBJECT OF THIS SPECIFIC RULING. This case dealt with license fees and taxes for the enjoyment of a protected right IN RELATION TO A MEMBER OF A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION/FAITH, WHO ENJOY CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE LAW.

Like I said, gunners get myopia whenever they feel threatened. If you like, I can copy and paste the ENTIRE paragraphs that demonstrated what I say. Or you could read the ENTIRE link comprehensively.

http://www.constitution.org/ussc/319-105a.htm

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote:
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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Actually, with regards to license cost, it is that simple.

The point of the statement was... This case is not about simple licensing and taxes. It is about a handgun ban.

Go back and follow the chronology of the posts on this thread.......although the original post subject was about (yet another) gun ban legislative proposal, there had been a segway to an assertion that license fee increases are a form of gun ban. As I logically pointed out, that is just not the case.

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
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.

The comparison is that these are all protected under the constitution. What about that fact are you unable to make sense? Let me explain it to you. The Constitution protects a LOT of things which have distinct and seperate rules, requirments, needs, etc. This means that those rights and laws must be addressed on their terms and how they are applied/referred to in/described/indicated/detailed by the Constitution. As the thread shows, this discussion is about a proposed gun ban that hasn't even gone beyond proposal stage. So when people start making assertions that are RELATED to the main topic, they must be discussed on their individual basis. To just blurt out, "it's in the Constitution" isn't a be all, end all qualifier or validation of your assertions and points. Driving and plumbing are not protected under the constitution (edit: not explicitly). No one said they were. It's your comparisons that are nonsense.

Evidently you are not comprehending what you are reading. Go back and read the paragraph...I refer to YOUR comparisons in a previous post.

 

[Annie]

Remember, YOU introduced the analogy, not me. I just took it to the logical conclusion to demonstrate the flaw in your assessment.

oncealed weapons permit holders by county
County Number Percent of population
Citrus 4,999 3.5
Hernando 6,137 3.7
Hillsborough 27,042 2.3
Manatee 7,745 2.4
Pasco 12,473 2.8
Pinellas 23,267 2.5
Florida county with the
fewest per capita
Gilchrist, 1.1 percent
Florida county with the most
Dixie, 5.3 percent
For all of Florida, 2.6 percent
Figures based on population estimates as of April 1, 2008, from the Office of Economic and Demographic Research of the Florida Legislature and permit holders as of Jan. 31 from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/article980290.ece

 

[Taichiliberal]

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/article980290.ece

Go back and read EVERYTHING I wrote during the exchanges. 2% of the population is a significant number (what's the total population number of Florida for this time frame?)....but that's not exactly an overwhelming number, now is it? And does this trend hold for all the states that have CCWP laws?

[ame="http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=530366&postcount=61"]Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Supreme Court returns to firearms fray[/ame]