Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I am guessing it's pretty simple - they are tired of the damage guns are doing, probably can't do much in terms of restricting guns, so they decided the people with the guns should carry more of the financial burden of said damage.
guns don't do damage - they are objectsKarmaPolice said:
Just like we require people who have made a conscious decision to own/drive a car carry insurance to cover the costs of accidents, and pay registration to cover the costs of road maintenance.
So you're acknowledging that the actual monetary costs we as a society bear due to gun owners is actually higher?
Driving isn't enshrined as a right in the Constitution. Believe it or not, that makes a big difference.
Society bears many costs in the protection of our duly enshrined rights. By this logic they'd be in favor of a poll tax.KarmaPolice said:
Where in the constitution does it say that the externalities of gun ownership should be borne by society at large?
The second amendment. We, as a society, bear the costs of all those amendments.
I'm not worried about it - like I said I think this is blatantly over the line. On the second i was just joking a bit. I do find it a bit ironic that localities that want to defund police at the same time want them probing gun ownership papers (which, let's face it, would be a misdemeanor). Total split personality when it comes to the stance on policing.
I highly disagree with this. That gun ownership is enshrined as a legal right is not the same as "everything associated with guns must be free of charge". If I want a gun right now, I have to take an expensive class to get licensed, then I have to buy the actual gun, and if I want ammo, I have to buy that too.
This is untrue. If I have a 50 acre farm I can have as many cars on that farm as I want. No registration, no insurance.
So if I want to hold a rally, exercise multiple first amendment rights it would impermissible for a local government to require a permit and possibly charge a fee to pay for police officers to provide security? This would be unconstitutional?
The second amendment talks about the right the bear arms. It doesn't talk about the right to have them provided, but if someone does have one the second amendment provides protections and rights to bear them.
driving a car isn't a Right
gun owners are not a monetary cost to society - tens of millions of us pay taxes on what we buy - ALL of what we buy sporting goods wise - we contribute great amounts of money to wildlife conservation, we support a great many organizations including police and veterans etc
I don't necessarily disagree with the permit item as, if the gathering is that large, the gathering may be curtailing other folk's rights - so a notification is a reasonable workaround there. I don't agree that one should have to pay a fee to express our first amendment rights in the public square, though.
And yet... you have to pay a fee to get a gun license in many states, do you not? How is this different?
there is no such thing as a "gun license" unless you're a dealer. However, If you want to conceal carry that's a license charge - but simply having a gun invokes no fees other than purchasing the firearm itself.
It's an interesting question as to when such fees become an unconstitutional impediment to our second amendment rights.
Agreed. A bill containing a provision requiring an annual fee of $1B surely wouldn't survive a Constitutional challenge. I think if the town/county/state/whatever can show that it spends $N annually on gun-related activity, spreading that cost over the gun owners probably would survive.
1. what % fit that description?
The amount of the fee is completely irrelevant. It's discriminatory in its application.
So? What level of scrutiny should a court apply here in determining whether this particular discrimination should be allowed? I would assume "Strict Scrutiny" which is the highest level (I think). So is this action-
Over the past decade or so the meaning of the second amendment (relative to historical court decisions) has been expanded, not suppressed.
No it hasn't. It's always meant the same thing. The courts are just re-enforcing it.
Then ignore the part of whether the discrimination is legal and just focus on the "so". Why is this form of discrimination wrong? Maybe you believe that all discrimination is wrong but certainly some forms of discrimination would be at the very least "necessary evils" (like discriminating against four year olds when it comes to buying alcohol, tobacco, and firearms). Are the questions we ask to determine when we need to accept that discrimination is necessary really all that different from the test of what should be equal?
Because there is no proven causal relationship between criminal mass shootings and the perfectly sane person legally following the law buying a gun who then immediately sticks it in their nightstand and never uses it once. Or the stereotypical hunter, etc.
We discriminate against other rights as well. We do not allow minor children to vote, and 48/50 states do not allow incarcerated felons to vote.
And that's exactly how the left plans on getting around the 2nd amendment. Make it so unaffordable that you've effectively banned them.
Every state that charges for a gun permit or a license to acquire a gun is already doing essentially the same thing; the money is just going toward something else. I am not aware of any state fee for a permit being overturned as discriminatory.
Thanks. Doesn't matter what the left "tells me." I won't be supporting law-abiding citizens asymetrically bearing the costs and responsibilities created by criminals, terrorists and nut jobs anytime soon.
The one group we know doesn't contribute to gun violence is people that don't own or use guns. Why should they bear the costs and responsibilities created by those who do?
The city council (along with the mayor) in San Jose are asserting that the presence of guns in the community imposes a cost to the community.
And that this cost should be the responsibility of those that bring guns into the community. Those that create the cost by having guns in the community should pay the cost. Seems rather straight forward that the subgroup of gun owners provide the guns that turn out to be used by criminals and create other safety concerns. That the non gun owner is not contributing to these costs.
Seems pretty hypocritical. When health care was deemed a "right" by the Democrats, they were perfectly fine mandating by law that young, healthy taxpayers disproportionately subsidize that right.
I don't use our elementary school, why should I subsidize it? Section 8 housing, not me, so why do I help pay for it? Facing a felony and needing a state paid lawyer, again why should I subsidize it?
Education, housing and health care are necessities, and also benefit society.
actually, you do. You're the ones getting shot by the criminals because you make it so easy for them by NOT carrying.
You mean arguing that free riders (the uninsured and the underinsured) should no longer be shifting the burden of their health care on to the rest of society is somehow different from arguing that gun owners should no longer be shifting the burden of their guns in society on to the rest of society?
You might have missed this earlier, but gun ownership is actually a guaranteed right in our Constitution. Driving cars isn't.
