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

[fskimospy]

That sure looks like the word subsidy to me? Now back the claim up.

Using the word 'subsidize' in a sentence does not equal saying 'New York State subsidizes gun permit administration costs'.

What that paragraph said was, in effect, 'NYS charging $10 for a gun permit doesn't mean it costs NYS $10 to process. States subsidize administrative fees in some cases, and that may be what's happening here'. Can you see how that is not a declarative statement like 'the gun fee is unreasonable' is? I can't believe this needs to be explained.

I've got places to go now, so I'll be unable to continue this lovely conversation with you. Please do consider reading the opinion though, you might find it enlightening.

 

[fskimospy]

lol @ people saying "DIFFERENT THAN POLL TAX!!" no it isn't idiots. voting is a right, owning a firearm is a right, putting a fee for entrance to either is exactly the same. only the twisted mind of a hypocrite would think otherwise. tools

Are you guys serious? The reason why the poll tax is unconstitutional is because it was made explicitly unconstitutional by the 24th amendment. The reason why they are different is because one is to-the-letter abolished and the other is not.

Think twice in the future before calling people tools about something when you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[nobodyknows]

Using the word 'subsidize' in a sentence does not equal saying 'New York State subsidizes gun permit administration costs'.

What that paragraph said was, in effect, 'NYS charging $10 for a gun permit doesn't mean it costs NYS $10 to process. States subsidize administrative fees in some cases, and that may be what's happening here'. Can you see how that is not a declarative statement like 'the gun fee is unreasonable' is? I can't believe this needs to be explained.

I've got places to go now, so I'll be unable to continue this lovely conversation with you. Please do consider reading the opinion though, you might find it enlightening.

That's arguable since you went from talking about the state to saying in the vey next sentence that some area subsudize, but not NYC. It sure sound like you were talkiong about NY state.

So at the very least you are claiming that NY state doesn't charge thw full cost.

Care to back that statement up? Either NY state is manging with a $10 charge or they are subsidizing the cost of processing the permits. It's one or the other.

 

[nobodyknows]

Are you guys serious? The reason why the poll tax is unconstitutional is because it was made explicitly unconstitutional by the 24th amendment. The reason why they are different is because one is to-the-letter abolished and the other is not.

Think twice in the future before calling people tools about something when you don't know what you're talking about.

Wrong. The right to "keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is pretty explicit and to the letter.

 

[Lithium381]

"subsidize" is simply a redistribution of wealth with a very strong political bias of some sort

 

[Jhhnn]

Wrong. The right to "keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is pretty explicit and to the letter.

Yet state & federal restrictions on full-auto weapons & others have been found to be entirely constitutional. The New York statute is no different, attempting to limit ownership of certain kinds of guns, not all guns.

Most people can't hit the broad side of a barn with a handgun, and are probably better off with something like this, if they're terribly concerned about home security-

http://keltecweapons.com/our-guns/rifles/sub-2000/

Doesn't require the payment of fees in New York, for example.

 

[fskimospy]

Wrong. The right to "keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is pretty explicit and to the letter.

No I'm sorry it's not, you are once again extremely confused on this issue. One is talking about rights, the other is talking about a specific activity governments are not allowed to undertake. Everyone knows that even Constitutionally guaranteed rights are subject to restrictions.

The government is explicitly barred from enacting a poll tax. The government is not explicitly barred from requiring gun permits, it is simply not allowed to 'infringe' upon the right to bear arms. They are very different.

 

[fskimospy]

That's arguable since you went from talking about the state to saying in the vey next sentence that some area subsudize, but not NYC. It sure sound like you were talkiong about NY state.

So at the very least you are claiming that NY state doesn't charge thw full cost.

Care to back that statement up? Either NY state is manging with a $10 charge or they are subsidizing the cost of processing the permits. It's one or the other.

No, I claimed nothing, I simply offered a potential explanation for why the permit costs would be different. That's why I used the word 'may'. In fact I was specifically telling you that to show you that you needed to go actually do some research before blathering on about this topic.

Stop trying to beat me and concentrate on forming a coherent argument.

 

[monovillage]

wiggle, wiggle, wiggle

 

[fskimospy]

wiggle, wiggle, wiggle

lol. I like how telling people incredibly obvious and completely uncontested Constitutional principles is 'wiggling'.

Go ahead, try and make the argument that the prohibition on poll taxes and the registration of firearms are the same thing. I dare you.

 

[monovillage]

"...the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

It's sooooo confusing, let me find a leftist liberal to interpret it for us.

"It means that guns are bad, bad, bad and if a city wants to keep them out of the hands of the people, except a few wealthy and/or politically connected ones it's OK"

Thank you leftist liberal law professor for making it so easy to understand.

 

[fskimospy]

"...the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

It's sooooo confusing, let me find a leftist liberal to interpret it for us.

"It means that guns are bad, bad, bad and if a city wants to keep them out of the hands of the people, except a few wealthy and/or politically connected ones it's OK"

Thank you leftist liberal law professor for making it so easy to understand.

LOL. I can't help but notice you didn't actually make an argument there other than "GARRRR LIBRULS!"

Make a real argument. Explain both the 24th amendment and the 2nd amendment. Tell us all why you believe the explicit prohibition of one activity and the general guarantee of a right are identical.

If you're really feeling frisky, go try to find some court precedent to back that up. (let me save you some time, you won't. Your argument would be laughed out of court)

 

[monovillage]

wiggle wiggle wiggle

What i'm saying is that it isn't hard to understand and you don't need it "interpreted" by fucking "experts". Read it.

"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is."

We've seen that kind of bullshit before and it just doesn't fly.

 

[fskimospy]

wiggle wiggle wiggle

What i'm saying is that it isn't hard to understand and you don't need it "interpreted" by fucking "experts". Read it.

Stupid stupid stupid

What qualifies as 'arms'? What exactly counts as 'infringement'? Be very specific. Remember, no interpreting.

We've seen that kind of bullshit before and it just doesn't fly.

That quote is nonsensical.

 

[monovillage]

It's a perfectly fitting quote.

"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is."

Playing games with definitions so you can lie about intent.

 

[fskimospy]

It's a perfectly fitting quote.

"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is."

Playing games with definitions so you can lie about intent.

I like how trying to get you to understand Civics 101 is 'playing games with definitions'. For people who claim to love the Constitution, you sure don't know how it works.

I simply asked you to explain yourself. Are the police allowed to take a gun away from a person who they just saw shoot five people? They are infringing on his right to bear arms by doing so, and there's nothing in the Constitution that says they can do that. Since we're not allowed to interpret the meaning, I guess the answer to that is no. Hope the cops are careful in the car on the way to the station.

Now that you mention it, they aren't allowed to deprive the criminal of liberty without due process. (5th amendment!) So really, since we're just taking the Constitution by the letter they aren't even allowed to arrest him.

 

[Darwin333]

No I'm sorry it's not, you are once again extremely confused on this issue. One is talking about rights, the other is talking about a specific activity governments are not allowed to undertake. Everyone knows that even Constitutionally guaranteed rights are subject to restrictions.

The government is explicitly barred from enacting a poll tax. The government is not explicitly barred from requiring gun permits, it is simply not allowed to 'infringe' upon the right to bear arms. They are very different.

So in your opinion the government can require you to pay a "permit fee" or whatever you want to call it that if you don't pay the .gov can search your property, tap your phone, etc...

Basically a fee to enjoy your 4th amendment rights since there is nothing that specifically states they can't....

Do you honestly think that is the way it was intended to be?

 

[fskimospy]

So in your opinion the government can require you to pay a "permit fee" or whatever you want to call it that if you don't pay the .gov can search your property, tap your phone, etc...

Basically a fee to enjoy your 4th amendment rights since there is nothing that specifically states they can't....

Do you honestly think that is the way it was intended to be?

What are you talking about? I'm going to assume from your previous post that you had forgotten that poll taxes are explicitly barred by the Constitution. You aren't trying to make the same retarded argument as nobodyknows or monovillage, right?

The courts have long held that the government may place reasonable restrictions on Constitutional rights. (the old fire in a crowded theater crap) The courts have also held that the government can implement fees to cover the costs incurred by the regulation of such rights. Like gun permits, event permits, etc. In light of this your example doesn't really make any sense. They are going to charge you for the administrative costs of not searching you?

They are NOT allowed to simply slap random, punitive fees in order to inhibit the realization of rights. If nobodyknows had bothered to read the judgment that I linked he would have seen that NYC's fee is based on an estimate generated for the administrative costs associated with gun licensing. It was upheld for the very reason that it was to cover incurred costs, not deliberately to limit gun ownership. (if you want to argue about why the admin costs are so high, fine, but that's why it was upheld)

I'm very open to hearing criticism of NYC's gun licensing scheme, but the argument that this falls under the same idea as the poll tax is simply factually incorrect. Similarly, the idea that we can just 'read the Constitution!' and not interpret what it means is simply flat out retarded.

 

[cybrsage]

We all agree the second amendment has to be limited. Nuclear arms, biological arms, chemical arms...the right to own all of these items must be infringed. Should we allow a private citizen to own a B-52 fully loaded with cluster bombs? No, that right to be arms must be infringed as well.

Since we all agree the right to bear arms actually MUST be infringed, we can stop pretending that it should not be. The argument is not over infringment...since we all agree there must be infringement, but instead over where the line should be.

The founding fathers obviously felt people should own rifles and pistols. These items were around, even multiple shot ones. We can certainly say there should be no infringement on these, right? Again, no. Most people will say convicted felons should not own handguns. So again, infringement is not only desired, but already legally in place and people say it is good.

So where should the line of infrigement stop?

 

[Darwin333]

What are you talking about? I'm going to assume from your previous post that you had forgotten that poll taxes are explicitly barred by the Constitution. You aren't trying to make the same retarded argument as nobodyknows or monovillage, right?

The courts have long held that the government may place reasonable restrictions on Constitutional rights. (the old fire in a crowded theater crap) The courts have also held that the government can implement fees to cover the costs incurred by the regulation of such rights. Like gun permits, event permits, etc. In light of this your example doesn't really make any sense. They are going to charge you for the administrative costs of not searching you?

They are NOT allowed to simply slap random, punitive fees in order to inhibit the realization of rights. If nobodyknows had bothered to read the judgment that I linked he would have seen that NYC's fee is based on an estimate generated for the administrative costs associated with gun licensing. It was upheld for the very reason that it was to cover incurred costs, not deliberately to limit gun ownership. (if you want to argue about why the admin costs are so high, fine, but that's why it was upheld)

I'm very open to hearing criticism of NYC's gun licensing scheme, but the argument that this falls under the same idea as the poll tax is simply factually incorrect. Similarly, the idea that we can just 'read the Constitution!' and not interpret what it means is simply flat out retarded.

I have a better example, say a liberal wants to go to a public Tea Party rally and the police decide that he needs protection because of the potential for others to not like his message. Should that liberal be forced to pay for the extra security in order to exercise his free speech?

While I know the left doesn't like guns I would think this would be an issue that we would agree on. Per your argument the .gov can basically ensure that only the well off can legally carry firearms. I personally would have not have a hard time paying the permit fee but I know plenty of people who it would prohibit from exercising their right simply because they couldn't afford the .govs fees.

 

[fskimospy]

I have a better example, say a liberal wants to go to a public Tea Party rally and the police decide that he needs protection because of the potential for others to not like his message. Should that liberal be forced to pay for the extra security in order to exercise his free speech?

While I know the left doesn't like guns I would think this would be an issue that we would agree on. Per your argument the .gov can basically ensure that only the well off can legally carry firearms. I personally would have not have a hard time paying the permit fee but I know plenty of people who it would prohibit from exercising their right simply because they couldn't afford the .govs fees.

First of all I have no problem with guns. I have a problem with the stupidity displayed in this thread.

I'm not sure how what you're describing would ever exist, it seems absurd on its face. If you are asking if the government can charge people for the costs incurred when people express themselves in public, the answer is unquestionably yes. That is already present in basically every municipality in the United States through event permit fees, etc, etc. There are cities in the US that already can and do charge protests for the police protection they require.

While I personally think that such policies are a bad idea, they are most certainly constitutional if equally applied. People here frequently confuse things they don't like as being unconstitutional.

 

[cave_dweller]

Looking at the OP username i will charge him 1000000000 dollars for a license

 

[Nebor]

Yet state & federal restrictions on full-auto weapons & others have been found to be entirely constitutional. The New York statute is no different, attempting to limit ownership of certain kinds of guns, not all guns.

Most people can't hit the broad side of a barn with a handgun, and are probably better off with something like this, if they're terribly concerned about home security-

http://keltecweapons.com/our-guns/rifles/sub-2000/

Doesn't require the payment of fees in New York, for example.

Not true, actually. In US vs. Rock Island Armory a federal court found that since new fully automatic weapons were no longer allowed to be added to the federal registry after 1986, then the law pertaining to such, which was passed under the tax code, was no longer able to collect taxes and was thus invalid.

The federal government never appealed the decision to a higher court.

 

[nobodyknows]

User's be warned, tried to reply to this thread twice, got a virus each time.

 

[Jhhnn]

Not true, actually. In US vs. Rock Island Armory a federal court found that since new fully automatic weapons were no longer allowed to be added to the federal registry after 1986, then the law pertaining to such, which was passed under the tax code, was no longer able to collect taxes and was thus invalid.

The federal government never appealed the decision to a higher court.

Obfuscational & immaterial.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090208100642AA1yRuX