TheEggman
Regular Member
imported post
The Heller decision affirmed that keeping and bearing arms is a primary 'right,' yet DC is charging a 'fee' to exercise that right.
They could argue that they have to recover their costs, and the 'fee' is only a small part, which, at first blush might make sense to the uninformed.
Registering voters, setting up polling places, maintaining voting rolls and running elections is a very expensive process. In 1962, with the abolition of Voter Poll Taxes, it was determined that the government can't charge a fee for the exercise of a right.
The same would seem to go for all firearm 'registration fees' and Owner ID Fees, etc.
It .MIGHT' be argued that CONCEALED carry is not a primary right, and if not, a permit fee passes muster. A 'fee,' however, just to OWN a firearm is clearly wrong.
How much more taxpayer money are these bozos going to waste, or are they just 'stalling' until there 'might be' a democrat, gun-grabbing administration in the W.H. to back them up?
The Heller decision affirmed that keeping and bearing arms is a primary 'right,' yet DC is charging a 'fee' to exercise that right.
They could argue that they have to recover their costs, and the 'fee' is only a small part, which, at first blush might make sense to the uninformed.
Registering voters, setting up polling places, maintaining voting rolls and running elections is a very expensive process. In 1962, with the abolition of Voter Poll Taxes, it was determined that the government can't charge a fee for the exercise of a right.
The same would seem to go for all firearm 'registration fees' and Owner ID Fees, etc.
It .MIGHT' be argued that CONCEALED carry is not a primary right, and if not, a permit fee passes muster. A 'fee,' however, just to OWN a firearm is clearly wrong.
How much more taxpayer money are these bozos going to waste, or are they just 'stalling' until there 'might be' a democrat, gun-grabbing administration in the W.H. to back them up?