Shooters Forum banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,370 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Is Freedom to Carry the logical next step for gun owners?

Alan Korwin, author of Gun Laws in America, seems to think so:

"So-called 'right to carry,' which requires government interference, paperwork, applications, approvals , taxes called 'fees,' mandatory classes, written tests, shooting tests, plastic-coated permission slips, fingerprinting, photographs, entries into criminal databases and expiration dates for your 'rights,' well, this has definitely moved the right to bear arms significantly ahead. Is it time to go further and reach 'Freedom To Carry'?"​
http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-...author-says-its-time-to-push-freedom-to-carry


What do you think? Is it time for gun owners to push for "Freedom to Carry"?
 

·
The Troll Whisperer (Moderator)
Joined
·
23,918 Posts
Wouldn't that be great if it were to be so?! :D
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
505 Posts
I vote we start today!:)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,370 Posts
only thing he said ,that i kinda disagree with ,is the bit about 50%
of population owing guns..of course i live in carolina..so im probably wrong ..but i believe the % is higher here.. are they all progun..not hardly..many havn t touched thier gun or guns in years..jmo slim
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,021 Posts
If you will do your research you will note that literacy tests ans poll taxes were found to be 'unconstitutional' when the RIGHT to vote was restricted, thus the current 'tests' and 'taxes' which restrict our RIGHT to carry are just as unconstitutional!!
We need to make people understand that RIGHTS can't just be denied becase some politian wants to!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,370 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
And Taxes!

If you will do your research you will note that literacy tests ans poll taxes were found to be 'unconstitutional' when the RIGHT to vote was restricted, thus the current 'tests' and 'taxes' which restrict our RIGHT to carry are just as unconstitutional!!
We need to make people understand that RIGHTS can't just be denied becase some politian wants to!!!
Jim:

I agree with you: Special taxes on a civil right are unconstitutional regardless of who benefits!

To paraphrase your words: "We need to make people understand that RIGHTS can't just be denied because 'hunters and shooters' want it to!!!"

In the wake of the Heller decision, it is time for the shooting industry to file lawsuits challenging special firearms and ammunition taxes on 2nd Amendment grounds - even those taxes that benefit hunting and shooting sports!

The question of special taxes - even small ones - on any aspect of a constitutionally protected right was settled by the Supreme Court over 20 years ago in a Freedom of the Press, 1st Amendment challenge.

In Minneapolis Star v Minnesota , SCOTUS ruled that raw newsprint (paper) cannot be subject to any special taxes, regardless of how minimal the tax, without violating the the 1st Amendment's protection of the Press. By this standard, the Heller decision could lead to the elimination special taxes placed only on gun and ammunition manufacturers as a violation of 2nd Amendment protections.

But it won't happen.

The 1937 vintage Pittman-Robertson Act (Section 4181), placed federal excise taxes, at the manufacturers level, on firearms and ammunition to fund conservation, wildlife management, range construction and hunter safety programs.

In 2009, some 50 million dollars in excise taxes were paid by the shooting industry! With this kind of money pouring into state wildlife agencies in the form of matching funds each year, it is highly unlikely the firearms industry would initiate any constitutional challenge to an excise tax that furthers its' own interests. Nor is any gun rights organization going to risk upsetting the hunter constituency that benefits most from Pittman-Robertson Act funds.

In Minneapolis Star v Minnesota (1987), the Supreme Court concluded:
"...differential taxation that selectively burdens the exercise of a fundamental right is impermissable."

Sounds good, until you "...follow the money!"

Ralph
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,021 Posts
Jim:

I agree with you: Special taxes on a civil right are unconstitutional regardless of who benefits!

To paraphrase your words: "We need to make people understand that RIGHTS can't just be denied because 'hunters and shooters' want it to!!!"

In the wake of the Heller decision, it is time for the shooting industry to file lawsuits challenging special firearms and ammunition taxes on 2nd Amendment grounds - even those taxes that benefit hunting and shooting sports!

The question of special taxes - even small ones - on any aspect of a constitutionally protected right was settled by the Supreme Court over 20 years ago in a Freedom of the Press, 1st Amendment challenge.

In Minneapolis Star v Minnesota , SCOTUS ruled that raw newsprint (paper) cannot be subject to any special taxes, regardless of how minimal the tax, without violating the the 1st Amendment's protection of the Press. By this standard, the Heller decision could lead to the elimination special taxes placed only on gun and ammunition manufacturers as a violation of 2nd Amendment protections.

But it won't happen.

The 1937 vintage Pittman-Robertson Act (Section 4181), placed federal excise taxes, at the manufacturers level, on firearms and ammunition to fund conservation, wildlife management, range construction and hunter safety programs.

In 2009, some 50 million dollars in excise taxes were paid by the shooting industry! With this kind of money pouring into state wildlife agencies in the form of matching funds each year, it is highly unlikely the firearms industry would initiate any constitutional challenge to an excise tax that furthers its' own interests. Nor is any gun rights organization going to risk upsetting the hunter constituency that benefits most from Pittman-Robertson Act funds.

In Minneapolis Star v Minnesota (1987), the Supreme Court concluded:
"...differential taxation that selectively burdens the exercise of a fundamental right is impermissable."

Sounds good, until you "...follow the money!"

Ralph
Hunters and shooters did not 'make the laws' politicians did. They used the 'excuse' you mentioned. This is just more of the 'normalization and legalization' of extremism by the progressives which affect EVERY facet of our live today!
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top