The Second Amendment doesn’t say that gun ownership has to be free of charge

mikeboston

NES Member
Rating - 100%
37   0   0
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
457
Likes
120
Requiring a tax or ID to exercise the 2nd disenfranchises certain communities such as minorities, the poor and senior citizens. Oh wait that’s the argument for not requiring an ID to vote.
I pay income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes I think I’m already taxed enough. How about we do not allow people to vote unless they are no longer under their parents health insurance. If that was the case I doubt we would ever see a sanders or warren elected ever again.
 

ReluctantDecoy

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
1,494
Likes
1,086
Location
Cambridge, MA
Wait a sec...I recall my LTC license application cost $100. I'm sure the fingerprint cards were incorporated into that fee. I also bought my own fingerprint cards and ink pad for my Form 1, and then paid $200 for the stamp. WTF she on about this being subsidized?
 

Dadstoys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
13,862
Likes
8,414
Location
North Shore
"But the freedom to own a firearm doesn’t mean it has to be free of charge. It doesn’t mean that owners can’t be a tiny bit inconvenienced. And someone’s right to own a gun certainly does not trump the safety rights of the rest of us."


Um yes actually it does sweetie.
 

Kevin_NH

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
7,765
Likes
1,543
Location
WNW of MHT
The author (I won't call her a reporter) Dahleen Glanton, has made a career out of playing the race card and calling for disarming white suburbanites.

They are smart by calling it a fee you can’t accuse them of taxing your right
Harper v. Virginia, says otherwise:
SCOTUS said:
"a state violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth
Then there's Murdock v. Pennsylvania, "A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution"
 

Dennis in MA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
24   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
17,452
Likes
8,742
Oh, don’t you worry. There’s a tax on stupidity.
It's called. . . . POWERBALL! LOL

Wait a sec...I recall my LTC license application cost $100. I'm sure the fingerprint cards were incorporated into that fee. I also bought my own fingerprint cards and ink pad for my Form 1, and then paid $200 for the stamp. WTF she on about this being subsidized?
Exactly. These things have a good chance of going by the wayside in the next couple of years due to USSC decisions. That would truly be awesome.
 

richc

NES Member
Rating - 100%
36   0   0
Joined
Oct 21, 2008
Messages
15,714
Likes
19,165
Location
metrowest
Will they start charging for Free Speech and the right to remain silent too?

Honestly I believe the politicians would if they could find a way...

:-(
 

meh

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 2, 2016
Messages
898
Likes
746
Location
Massachusetts
Let's compare it to the 6th amendment:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

Imagine being asked to kick in for the cost of your "speedy and public trial by an impartial jury", or being charged $200 to learn the "nature and cause of the accusation" for which you are being held. OK, that's an argument against licensing fees, but then you might point out that it is accepted practice for the accused to pay for their own counsel, so here is an enumerated right that people generally pay for. OK, but because counsel is a right and not just a privilege, the government is compelled to provide you with counsel if you can't afford it. I've often wondered if they are are also compelled to even if you can but would rather not, but I've just been too lazy to research it. Anyway, the chief discriminatory aspect of high fees for gun licensing is that it discriminates against the poor. Does the legislation have a provision to make the licensing process free to those who can establish financial need?

Usually progressives don't want that because their ultimate goal is to squeeze lawfully-owned guns out of society. Gun owners can see what they are up to.
 
Last edited:

powerman

NES Member
Rating - 100%
30   0   0
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
1,147
Likes
319
Location
Eastern, MA
Honestly if you think about it . The only time any US Constitutional Right is Free is the day you are born.
On that day other than taking your first breath just being born a US citizen your granted these rights... all the days after you/me/them/us are paying one way or another

Imagine now “they set up inconvenience fee” for voting.
Completely incorrect you are not free, the millisecond you are born you probably owe $70-80K (average) towards national debt.
You didn't make that womb you lived in in for 9 months, the government created it for you, just like all the roads and stuff like that
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Messages
3,743
Likes
1,489
Location
Louisiana
I've said before, when I get the address and/or location of my state issued M4 or other State issued weapon, I'm no longer listening to any more arguments on what guns I can or can not buy.

I also want enough ammo to be proficient with said weapon issued to me.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Messages
3,743
Likes
1,489
Location
Louisiana
Let's compare it to the 6th amendment:

Imagine being asked to kick in for the cost of your "speedy and public trial by an impartial jury", or being charged $200 to learn the "nature and cause of the accusation" for which you are being held. OK, that's an argument against licensing fees, but then you might point out that it is accepted practice for the accused to pay for their own counsel, so here is an enumerated right that people generally pay for. OK, but because counsel is a right and not just a privilege, the government is compelled to provide you with counsel if you can't afford it. I've often wondered if they are are also compelled to even if you can but would rather not, but I've just been too lazy to research it. Anyway, the chief discriminatory aspect of high fees for gun licensing is that it discriminates against the poor. Does the legislation have a provision to make the licensing process free to those who can establish financial need?
After contesting a ticket....*cough* court costs *cough*. It still cost me money, to not pay money for a ticket I shouldn't have gotten. Either I broke the law and should have paid the full fine, or I didn't. I didn't pay the ticket fine, or have points/reported for insurance or against my driving record.
 

Waher

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
8,809
Likes
8,086
Location
Boston Gun & Rifle and Braintree Rifle & Pistol
After contesting a ticket....*cough* court costs *cough*. It still cost me money, to not pay money for a ticket I shouldn't have gotten. Either I broke the law and should have paid the full fine, or I didn't. I didn't pay the ticket fine, or have points/reported for insurance or against my driving record.
The MA SJC and legislature ignored the constitution to impose those hearing fees. It should be appealed to the feds.
 

timbo

Navy Veteran
NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Dec 17, 2010
Messages
9,786
Likes
6,402
Location
Rt 3, NH
Anything you want to do to the second amendment, fine... it also applies to voting.

"It’s just a fact of life that voting is now a permanent legal fixture in the American landscape. We have to live with that.
But the freedom to vote doesn’t mean it has to be free of charge. It doesn’t mean that voters can’t be a tiny bit inconvenienced."

Beat me to it...
 
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
34,751
Likes
11,280
Imagine being asked to kick in for the cost of your "speedy and public trial by an impartial jury"
The fee for a trial before a judge in a traffic citation in MA is $75.
counsel is a right and not just a privilege, the government is compelled to provide you with counsel if you can't afford it
Unless you live in your parents' house and they can afford it by liquidating retirement accounts, even if you are an adult. Yes, really, according to the Supreme Marsupial Court of MA.
 

meh

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 2, 2016
Messages
898
Likes
746
Location
Massachusetts
The fee for a trial before a judge in a traffic citation in MA is $75.

Unless you live in your parents' house and they can afford it by liquidating retirement accounts, even if you are an adult. Yes, really, according to the Supreme Marsupial Court of MA.
Massachusetts never ceases to amaze.
 

Uzi2

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
5,027
Likes
5,756
What Dahleen and many others still to this very day REFUSE to recognize is, The 2A is an outright, clearly stated, and irrefutable prohibition, specifically directed towards and against the federal government from infringing on the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms.
It is not a "grant" of that right by the federal government to the people, it is telling the federal government to keep their slimey paws and dictatorial ideas OFF AND AWAY FROM the people's right to keep and bear arms.
 

Palladin

NES Member
Rating - 100%
24   0   0
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
24,755
Likes
6,724
Location
Merrimack Valley

mo' money
 

C. Stockwell

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Dec 12, 2018
Messages
2,514
Likes
2,370
Location
RI
Two thoughts:

(1) In some parts and times of Colonial New England, each town's residents were required to own guns, swords, and necessary accouterments; and
(2) The Boer Republics would subsidize citizens who couldn't afford to have the latest and greatest rifles so each citizen would have the best guns possible, which in the 1880s-1890s, meant keeping up with rapid developments in gun and ammo technological developments
 

SgtHal75

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 10, 2016
Messages
1,493
Likes
1,400
Location
Hidden rebel base
"It’s just a fact of life that handguns are now permanent legal fixtures in the American landscape. We have to live with that.

But the freedom to own a firearm doesn’t mean it has to be free of charge. It doesn’t mean that owners can’t be a tiny bit inconvenienced."

Let's change a few words and watch the liberals freak out.

It’s just a fact of life that abortions are now permanent legal fixtures in the American landscape. We have to live with that.

But the freedom to have an abortion doesn’t mean it has to be free of charge. It doesn’t mean that women can’t be a tiny bit inconvenienced.

The Second Amendment doesn't say that gun ownership has to be free of charge
Can’t remember the case but it clearly says we can’t be charged a fee for a constitutionally protected right
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
2,835
Likes
2,191
Location
Worcester, MA
Another though:

Tyranny of the majority - When a majority of an elected body exclusively pursues it's own interests at the expense of the minority resulting in oppression similar to that under a single despotic ruler. When we have specifically enumerated rights under our Constitution, as well as a legal mechanism through which to amend our Constitution, passing laws which unambiguously abridge rights protected by the Constitution are both a violation of the lawmaker's oath of office, and a violation of the social compact which compels one's obedience to the law.

A sales tax on all goods at a consistent percentage is not an infringement. A special tax on firearms and ammunition absolutely is an infringement. Wake up Connecticut - this is happening right now.
 

Kevin_NH

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
7,765
Likes
1,543
Location
WNW of MHT
Can’t remember the case but it clearly says we can’t be charged a fee for a constitutionally protected right
If you look upthread, at least three Supreme Court cases have been mentioned, all rejecting taxation of enumerated rights -- Minneapolis Star Tribune v. Commissioner, Harper v. Virginia, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, etc.

A sales tax on all goods at a consistent percentage is not an infringement. A special tax on firearms and ammunition absolutely is an infringement. Wake up Connecticut - this is happening right now.
The Cook County case is still moving along in state courts, while Watson v. City of Seattle just kind of evaporated after the 2017 Washington state court decision?
 

amm5061

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jun 20, 2016
Messages
6,699
Likes
4,535
Location
Holliston, MA
Another though:

Tyranny of the majority - When a majority of an elected body exclusively pursues it's own interests at the expense of the minority resulting in oppression similar to that under a single despotic ruler. When we have specifically enumerated rights under our Constitution, as well as a legal mechanism through which to amend our Constitution, passing laws which unambiguously abridge rights protected by the Constitution are both a violation of the lawmaker's oath of office, and a violation of the social compact which compels one's obedience to the law.

A sales tax on all goods at a consistent percentage is not an infringement. A special tax on firearms and ammunition absolutely is an infringement. Wake up Connecticut - this is happening right now.

You know, that happened before....

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
 
Top Bottom