Raising fees...again?

[mrjam2jab]

imported post

From CT Gun Rights dot com

[font="Verdana,Arial,Geneva"]http://www.ctgunrights.com/03.Political/Cover%2029-30%20fees.pdf

Sorry if this has already been brought up...but it looks like they plan on raising the fees again to $100???
[/font]

 

[Rich B]

imported post

mrjam2jab wrote:

From CT Gun Rights dot com

Why the obfuscation?

http://ctgunrights.com

I am sure he won't mind the traffic.

 

[Edward Peruta]

imported post

I thankALLvisitors to http://www.ctgunrights.com and want to say that these proposals were solicited by DPS from all departments in late summer.

I could be that the legislative decision to double the fees makes the suggested increase moot.

I can't be sure of what will or will not make it through the OPM and Governor's process, but felt it was important to let everyone know what was sent to OPM by DPS.

Everything may change now that the Governor has said she will not be running for another term.

IT'S GOING TO BE A VERY INTERESTING ELECTIONIN 2010 BECAUSE THE U.S. SUPREME COURT WILL HAVE HEARD AND RENDERED THEIR RULING IN THE CHICAGO CASE BY THE END OF JUNE 2010.

FIREARMS ADVOCATES WILL GET A CHANCE TO ATTEND ELECTION APPEARANCES AND ASK THE CANDIDATES THEIR POSITION ON FIREARMS.

 

[mrjam2jab]

imported post

Rich B wrote:

mrjam2jab wrote:

From CT Gun Rights dot com

Why the obfuscation?

http://ctgunrights.com

I am sure he won't mind the traffic.

For some reason i had some issues posting the clickable link for the document...kept getting the url brackets etc...I changed that one to "dot com" so i could tell which was which....:quirky

 

[gluegun]

imported post

Actually, the fee proposed was $150 plus the FBI background check fee. $50 to local authority, 100 to DPS. $30 of that amount goes back to DPS and the other $70 is put into the general fund.

If they want to raise fees, I have no problem making $50 go to the local authority and $30 directly to DPS while the general fund gets nothing. That's a net increase of $10 (11%) and both DPS and local authority get more money. Much more reasonable than increasing the fees 134%.

 

[GoldCoaster]

imported post

gluegun wrote:

Actually, the fee proposed was $150 plus the FBI background check fee. $50 to local authority, 100 to DPS. $30 of that amount goes back to DPS and the other $70 is put into the general fund.

If they want to raise fees, I have no problem making $50 go to the local authority and $30 directly to DPS while the general fund gets nothing. That's a net increase of $10 (11%) and both DPS and local authority get more money. Much more reasonable than increasing the fees 134%.

I have a problem with being charged what is now rather a large amount of money to exercise a basic right as defined in the US and CT constitution. They need to be stopped, and pushed back into their boxes and hard.

 

[gluegun]

imported post

GoldCoaster wrote:

gluegun wrote:

Actually, the fee proposed was $150 plus the FBI background check fee. $50 to local authority, 100 to DPS. $30 of that amount goes back to DPS and the other $70 is put into the general fund.

If they want to raise fees, I have no problem making $50 go to the local authority and $30 directly to DPS while the general fund gets nothing. That's a net increase of $10 (11%) and both DPS and local authority get more money. Much more reasonable than increasing the fees 134%.

I have a problem with being charged what is now rather a large amount of money to exercise a basic right as defined in the US and CT constitution. They need to be stopped, and pushed back into their boxes and hard.

I agree. But if all DPS wants is $30/permit to administer the program, we could eliminate the towns all together leaving the total cost of obtaining a permit at $30+19.25(fbi check) = $49.25. I'm sure we could all agree to that.

My previous statement was simply an "If we have to increase the fees, here's what we should do" sort of thing. It was meant to be a reasonable increase, rather than prohibitive.

Of course, this is all predicated on the assumption that we must have some sort of permit process. I'd rather move to a VT style system.

 

[ESCH]

imported post

Don't lose track of the reason for fee increases. The State spends too much money on BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I for one wouldn't be against fee increases if the state was going to open a dozen more public shooting ranges with the fee increases.

The problem is, it is about taking money from the haves and giving it to the have nots. :banghead: