NY Judge rules that you only have constitutional rights if you're rich

[schneiderguy]

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP9d1f735ecc5246de8a5671426791f40f.html

NEW YORK — A New York judge says it's Constitutional for the city to charge an application fee for a handgun permit.

Federal Judge John Koeltl (KOH'-tuhl) Monday rejected a lawsuit brought by guns rights advocates including the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and the Second Amendment Foundation. They sued last year, saying a $340 handgun license fee every three years is unconstitutional because it burdens a basic right.

The judge says there's no evidence the fee has stopped anyone from exercising their rights. He says the city showed the fee helps cover administrative costs.

City Attorney Michael Cardoza says the ruling upholds the city's ability to conduct meaningful checks into applicants' qualifications. A lawyer for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to a message for comment.

$340 every three years is a completely ridiculous amount of money to exercise your constitutional right to keep and bear arms, even $1 is way too much. Those damn conservatives, keeping the poor man down

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

New York's bizarre handgun laws were instituted by a powerful political boss so he could make sure only his cronies could have them. NYC proper took that and ran with it. There's a Marine who was passing through with an unloaded weapon who faces years of imprisonment. Embarrassed, NYC tried to do a lesser charge if he didn't raise a fuss. Well in splendid Marine style he told them to F off. Hope he owns the damn city.

 

[Zebo]

Good post I agree 100%. In fact regulated back then meant trained and state should pay to train in firearms.

 

[Infohawk]

There are a lot of fees and penalties these days that are burdensome on poor people.

 

[Zebo]

There are a lot of fees and penalties these days that are burdensome on poor people.

But not one to speak or go to church. Those are rights unlike say driving.

 

[fskimospy]

New York's bizarre handgun laws were instituted by a powerful political boss so he could make sure only his cronies could have them. NYC proper took that and ran with it. There's a Marine who was passing through with an unloaded weapon who faces years of imprisonment. Embarrassed, NYC tried to do a lesser charge if he didn't raise a fuss. Well in splendid Marine style he told them to F off. Hope he owns the damn city.

He won't.

If he was transiting with the weapon in an official capacity he's almost certainly fine. If he's doing so illegally in a private capacity, the Marines will be the first ones to send him up the river.

It might be a bad PR move for NYC, but what would he sue the city for?

 

[TecHNooB]

i dont follow politics, but how is a license fee to bear arms being conservative?

 

[schneiderguy]

i dont follow politics, but how is a license fee to bear arms being conservative?

I was being sarcastic, the libruls have a bitch fit every time a state tries to mandate that you show ID to vote, because then "poor people can't exercise their rights!!!" but there's a strange lack of outrage over cases like this from the same people.

 

[nobodyknows]

New York's bizarre handgun laws were instituted by a powerful political boss so he could make sure only his cronies could have them. NYC proper took that and ran with it. There's a Marine who was passing through with an unloaded weapon who faces years of imprisonment. Embarrassed, NYC tried to do a lesser charge if he didn't raise a fuss. Well in splendid Marine style he told them to F off. Hope he owns the damn city.

The fee is total BS. About the marine:

The Post reports that a letter writing campaign is targeting Police Commissioner and Marine Vietnam veteran Ray Kelly, asking that the charges be waived for their "brother." "It's definitely emotionally devastating, looking at maybe facing 3 1/2 years in prison," Jerome tells the paper. Honorably discharged in 2005, Jerome is now a jeweler, and had come to New York with $15,000 worth of gold to a Long Island refinery. He claims that he tried to check to see if his Indiana permit would be accepted here, but "a cellphone glitch confused him." Jerome was arrested trying to check the weapon at the Empire State Building.

http://gothamist.com/2012/01/16/should_a_marine_be_charged_for_brin.php

 

[thraashman]

I was being sarcastic, the libruls have a bitch fit every time a state tries to mandate that you show ID to vote, because then "poor people can't exercise their rights!!!" but there's a strange lack of outrage over cases like this from the same people.

Well, first, the outrage over the ID laws is a fully justified outrage. Second, this unlike the voter ID laws is not being done explicitly for political purposes.

As far as this goes, I feel guns should be registered. Having them be on file somewhere is a good idea. A fee of $340 to cover administrative costs seems quite high for that. Having that fee be every 3 years seems ridiculous. Any fee for registration should be a one time fee of a reasonible cost. Only time the fee should be charged again is if the gun changes owners and thus has to be re-registered to someone else.

 

[Howard]

Well, first, the outrage over the ID laws is a fully justified outrage. Second, this unlike the voter ID laws is not being done explicitly for political purposes.

As far as this goes, I feel guns should be registered. Having them be on file somewhere is a good idea. A fee of $340 to cover administrative costs seems quite high for that. Having that fee be every 3 years seems ridiculous. Any fee for registration should be a one time fee of a reasonible cost. Only time the fee should be charged again is if the gun changes owners and thus has to be re-registered to someone else.

But it costs money to keep servers (?) up and running. =\

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry

 

[monovillage]

I was being sarcastic, the libruls have a bitch fit every time a state tries to mandate that you show ID to vote, because then "poor people can't exercise their rights!!!" but there's a strange lack of outrage over cases like this from the same people.

That's because there's always bald assed hypocrites that feel only the rights they support are truly rights. They'll lie, cheat, snivel and swindle anyone and everyone in their desperate attempt to deny rights to the people they don't approve.

http://www.stripersonline.com/t/836495/long-gun-law-repealed-in-canada
long gun registry repealed

 

[xBiffx]

Well, first, the outrage over the ID laws is a fully justified outrage. Second, this unlike the voter ID laws is not being done explicitly for political purposes.

As far as this goes, I feel guns should be registered. Having them be on file somewhere is a good idea. A fee of $340 to cover administrative costs seems quite high for that. Having that fee be every 3 years seems ridiculous. Any fee for registration should be a one time fee of a reasonible cost. Only time the fee should be charged again is if the gun changes owners and thus has to be re-registered to someone else.

But somehow requiring someone to obtain ID to vote (i.e. register and pay a fee) is different? It would follow the exact same logic. When they move or change information they file again. Only difference I see is that if you can't afford the registration costs in that case, they can be covered for you but not in the case of registering a firearm. So I tend to agree that only those that can afford in it this case are able to exercise their constitutional rights. Strange how liberals are mum and/or supportive on this topic.

 

[gevorg]

I don't see anything wrong with reasonable administrative fees for various government related services, but $340 every 3 years is highway robbery (i.e. $10+/month lifetime cost to have a right to bear arms). If its "free" then even non-gun owners would share the cost, which is not ideal for cities/counties where the majority are not interested in owning a gun. So "free" gun permits is something that should get voter approved as part of tax distribution/increase/etc.

 

[fskimospy]

But somehow requiring someone to obtain ID to vote (i.e. register and pay a fee) is different? It would follow the exact same logic. When they move or change information they file again. Only difference I see is that if you can't afford the registration costs in that case, they can be covered for you but not in the case of registering a firearm. So I tend to agree that only those that can afford in it this case are able to exercise their constitutional rights. Strange how liberals are mum and/or supportive on this topic.

The argument about voter ID laws was that they were useless and deliberately targeted unfriendly voter constituencies in order to suppress turnout. The fact that you thought the argument was 'anyone had to pay money ever to exercise a right' explains why the ultra right's arguments for voter ID are so hilariously bad.

 

[nobodyknows]

The argument about voter ID laws was that they were useless and deliberately targeted unfriendly voter constituencies in order to suppress turnout. The fact that you thought the argument was 'anyone had to pay money ever to exercise a right' explains why the ultra right's arguments for voter ID are so hilariously bad.

Start your own thread about it.

 

[xBiffx]

The argument about voter ID laws was that they were useless and deliberately targeted unfriendly voter constituencies in order to suppress turnout. The fact that you thought the argument was 'anyone had to pay money ever to exercise a right' explains why the ultra right's arguments for voter ID are so hilariously bad.

And what exactly has registering a firearm or requiring a carry license prevented again? Oh right, all those law abiding criminals get stopped dead in their tracks because the registry catches them before committing a real violent crime with that illegal firearm. If voter ID is useless then so is this. Also, gun registration targets law abiding citizens instead of criminals, not very fair, and also suppresses gun ownership. :whiste:

 

[schneiderguy]

The argument about voter ID laws was that they were useless and deliberately targeted unfriendly voter constituencies in order to suppress turnout. The fact that you thought the argument was 'anyone had to pay money ever to exercise a right' explains why the ultra right's arguments for voter ID are so hilariously bad.

Gun laws are useless and deliberately target minorities.

I can go dig up the voter ID thread and give you a bunch of posts with people screaming "POLL TAX" over a $20 ID.

 

[fskimospy]

Start your own thread about it.

No, it's been discussed to death.

 

[fskimospy]

Gun laws are useless and deliberately target minorities.

I can go dig up the voter ID thread and give you a bunch of posts with people screaming "POLL TAX" over a $20 ID.

You realize that the USSC has explicitly ruled all poll taxes, regardless of amount unconstitutional, right? And that the same court doesn't have problems with licensing fees for other things, right? What aren't you getting about this?

If you think gun laws are useless and deliberately target minorities that's fine. You should argue against them on those grounds then instead of making an argument that simply exposed your ignorance of other issues.

 

[nobodyknows]

Gun laws are useless and deliberately target minorities.

I can go dig up the voter ID thread and give you a bunch of posts with people screaming "POLL TAX" over a $20 ID.

It all depends on whose bull is being gored.

 

[schneiderguy]

You realize that the USSC has explicitly ruled all poll taxes, regardless of amount unconstitutional, right? And that the same court doesn't have problems with licensing fees for other things, right? What aren't you getting about this?

If you think gun laws are useless and deliberately target minorities that's fine. You should argue against them on those grounds then instead of making an argument that simply exposed your ignorance of other issues.

So why is it OK for some rights to have fees applied to them but not others?

Would you support a free speech license for the low low price of $100 a year?

 

[thraashman]

But somehow requiring someone to obtain ID to vote (i.e. register and pay a fee) is different? It would follow the exact same logic. When they move or change information they file again. Only difference I see is that if you can't afford the registration costs in that case, they can be covered for you but not in the case of registering a firearm. So I tend to agree that only those that can afford in it this case are able to exercise their constitutional rights. Strange how liberals are mum and/or supportive on this topic.

Now lets compare the frequency of voter id fraud crimes vs the frequency of gun related crimes. Guess what, gun related crimes is a way higher occurrence. Even if you go with gun related crimes by legal owners of registered firearms vs voter fraud rate in an area with no voter id law, gun related crimes is still way higher. Voter fraud crimes, almost non-existant. Statistically you're more likely to be struck by lightning than to even know someone who committed vote fraud. Now imagine if no guns ever had to be registered and thus anyone who bought a gun could use it in a crime and it was untraceable! How do you think that would affect gun crime rates?

Also, a gun purchaser is already making a purchase. They're already choosing to spend money on a firearm. Voting, by law, is free.

 

[nobodyknows]

You realize that the USSC has explicitly ruled all poll taxes, regardless of amount unconstitutional, right? And that the same court doesn't have problems with licensing fees for other things, right? What aren't you getting about this?

If you think gun laws are useless and deliberately target minorities that's fine. You should argue against them on those grounds then instead of making an argument that simply exposed your ignorance of other issues.

They also ruled that the individuals right to bear arms applies to local gun control laws. Putting an unreasonable fee on the right to own a handgun means that only the well off and the criminals will have handguns. Clearly the state is trying to infringe on that supreme court ruling. Where is your outrage?

 

[nobodyknows]

Now lets compare the frequency of voter id fraud crimes vs the frequency of gun related crimes. Guess what, gun related crimes is a way higher occurrence. Even if you go with gun related crimes by legal owners of registered firearms vs voter fraud rate in an area with no voter id law, gun related crimes is still way higher. Voter fraud crimes, almost non-existant. Statistically you're more likely to be struck by lightning than to even know someone who committed vote fraud. Now imagine if no guns ever had to be registered and thus anyone who bought a gun could use it in a crime and it was untraceable! How do you think that would affect gun crime rates?

Also, a gun purchaser is already making a purchase. They're already choosing to spend money on a firearm. Voting, by law, is free.

So what? It's an infringment of the 2nd Amendment.