Sharp as a Marble - What better way to restrict the rights of the poor?

<< Rumination on playing it safe | Home | No more spicy Chick-Fil-A sandwiches for me >>

What better way to restrict the rights of the poor?

Out of sight, out of mind

Just make the licensing fees for a right so high they can't afford it!

Glad to see this in the article

What's more, Nobles points out, is that gun ownership and concealed handgun licenses don't necessarily go hand-in-hand. Texans can legally keep guns in their homes and cars without a license. And then there are those who don't care what's legal and just carry a gun anyway.

NO WAY! That's unpossible!!! I thought stringent licensing requirements with their associated fees prevented this type of malfeasance?

So, a question to those who think that CCW licensing is a good idea – Why? What is it about CCW licenses that prevent criminals from packing heat?

posted @ 10/4/2010 11:40:32 AM

Incoming Links

SayUncle » You mean things that cost money disadvantage the poor? on 10/5/2010 9:47:33 AM

Comments

alan says:

on 10/4/2010 12:29:35 PM

That's why the NFA tax was set at $200. They figured no one would buy a machine gun when the tax was higher than the price of the gun.

Sarah says:

on 10/4/2010 12:35:05 PM

Well, if we didn't tack on those fees, po' folks would be encouraged to exercise one of their rights. We can't have them packin' heat, man. They might get desperate and rob a bank when the light bill's overdue.

/sarc

Jake says:

on 10/4/2010 1:01:31 PM

And then there's the proposed concealed carry bill in NJ that Uncle mentioned this morning. It's "shall issue", but there's a $500 annual fee.

We can't have the peons arming themselves, y'know. Someone might get uppity.

Bubblehead Les says:

on 10/4/2010 2:53:20 PM

Hmm. One has to pay for the ability to drive, via Plates, License and Insurance, yet the Courts consider it a "Privilege". Yet if one was charged a Poll Tax or show that they were Property Owners and had a Stake in their Community, that's Unconstitutional because Voting is a Right. But since we've had 2 SCOTUS rulings declaring Gun Ownership a Right.... Might have a new case to bring into the Courts.

Eck! says:

on 10/4/2010 3:49:06 PM

I wrote that one up already.. Save for I used cars and based the laws on MA gun laws.

Yep, If your rich and powerful you can drive too.. unless..

Because of that it's a clear case of segregation.

Eck!

McThag says:

on 10/4/2010 7:07:09 PM

@Alan: Thank goodness for inflation!

@Bubblehead Les: Poll taxes are unconstitutional NOW, 24th Amendment, 1964. Prior to that, perfectly legal.

I am opposed to CCW permits, I think Vermont has it right about carry. I have a permit, go along to get along. I don't want to end up in jail knowing that even though it's a right, that right is officially infringed with no recourse for relief at this time.

Stuart the Viking says:

on 10/5/2010 8:18:33 AM

I was tempted to just start carrying without getting my ccw even though I am generally a law abiding type. I told myself it would be my own little protest. I don't believe a ccw should be required for an upstanding citizen. Then, I chickened out and got the ccw anyway. I figured that an illegally carried gun wouldn't be as useful (since I wouldn't want to go to jail) as a legally carried one should I really need it. Happily, I carry daily and have never needed it, and I hope I will still be able to say that when I am 90.

s

Alpheus says:

on 10/6/2010 6:22:34 PM

@Stuart the Viking. You coward! How dare you put your self-interest (and desires of staying out of jail) over what's right?!? ;-)

Actually, when you chicken out like that, I consider it a type of "self-defense" from the State. Even if I chose to pursue such action, I will not hold a grudge against someone who chooses the other course.

After all, some of us have families to worry about, among other things.

Comments have been closed on this topic.