Have you chatted up your local rep in Boston about sending a refund of your pistol permit fee? Seeing how the SJC says we have a right...do we get our funds back? Just wondering...I don't know that I've ever covered this before, but it's a damn good subject. It used to be that only landowners could vote - if you owned land, the thinking went, you had a vested interest in the political process, in who was making laws and who would be enforcing them. Someone with no real stake in the local area was less likely to care about the outcome of an election, as they could be down the road in a new town at a moment's notice. After the Civil War the concept of a poll tax caught on - make folks pay for the privilege of voting - and was eventually made unConstitutional by the 24th amendment.
Forgive me if I missed the blog entry about this subject.
So why, then, can MA get away with charging $100 for a permit that is required before one can own a firearm? Isn't this the very same thing as a poll tax? I cannot legally own any type of firearm as a resident of Massachusetts unless I pay $100 for a permit - how is this not the same as a poll tax? Both infringe on my rights as an American; one has been permanently stricken down while the other shows no sign of abatement - why is that? Maybe it's time we started a movement to change this.
Granted, there are only a few states that require a permit simply to own a firearm. Hawaii, Illinois, and New Jersey require a permit to own a firearm of any kind along with Massachusetts; it seems as though we are not alone in our assessment of fees needed to exercise our natural rights. It would seem to be a slam dunk, then, to start a movement to repeal these onerous fees on a protected right. I think we need to do something about this. I think we need another Constitutional amendment to banish firearms permit fees.
Let's start the ball rolling on the 28th amendment to the Constitution: An Act to Repeal Firearms Permits...
That is all.
11 comments:
So why, then, can MA get away with charging $100 for a permit that is required before one can own a firearm?
The same way that states can get away with requiring permits for parades and demonstrations, when both freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are protected by the First Amendment: Courts have ruled that a moderate fee for such things is not a restriction on that right. It's only a restriction if it's excessive or prohibitive.
Considering the cost of buying a gun, buying ammo, belonging to a firing range, etc., the $100 permit fee probably doesn't qualify as prohibitive.
I would love to see us get rid of the need of a permit just to own a gun here. . . your permit runs out you have 60 ro 90 days then you are a criminal. How many other states have that BS to worry about. Permits to buy, or carry I can almost see but still think are wrong. Permits just to posess your dad or grandad's hand me down gun is nuts.
The permit is free. All they are doing is collecting an administrative fee that does not even cover the actual expense involved in determining that you are not either a prohibited (under applicable state and/or federal laws) prohibited person or otherwise not morally suitable to exercise your unalienable right.
And you do know the difference between "unalienable" and "inalienable", don't you?
stay safe.
wv = wootabbl - durn'd skippy it is!
Oops! Forgot the most important point --
Don't argue with them about the fee or they'll realize they are not recouping the full cost. If they do that the cost will go up!
stay safe.
"Don't argue with them about the fee or they'll realize they are not recouping the full cost. If they do that the cost will go up!"
That smacks of "Don't fight back, you'll only make him mad and the rape will be worse."
Right is right and wrong is wrong. A Right is a Right and a Permit is Permission.....
An interesting thought... or you could just move to America... :-)
Pretty good one Jay.
At first I thought that a $100 LTC isn't needed to own a gun, just a $2 FID, which is much more reasonable. Then I realized that it was in 1998 that I left screaming and now it's $100 for the FID which doesn't allow you to own magazines.
Administrative fees could be reasonable, but they get prohibitive in terms of dollar amount and duration of the permit. As a non-res of MA, if I wanted a permit it would be $100 per year *and* have to annually attend an interview in Chelsea where my suitability would be judged.
Skidmark, if this is a fundamentla right, it's hard to see them charging you to exercise it. Jay's example of a poll tax is precisely correct here.
And as to the "it costs them $X to do it" seems to be a great excuse for them to staff their organization with the biggest bunch of sad sack incompetents to run up that price.
Net/net, if they want to do the check, it should come out of the General Fund. Don't make poor Massachusetts people have to choose between their medication and their protection, and all that.
Even though I hate that we here in Illinois need a permit to own a firearm, I am thankful that it's only $5, and the thing lasts for 10 years.
Now if only we could get concealed carry.
I guess I should have put a smiley in there along with my comments.
Sorry the tongue-in-cheekiness did not come through in print.
But thank you for actually thinking that there might be some goofball out there who really did believe that fees of this sort are just "the cost of exercising a right".
No, gentle readers, I did not squirm my way under the razor wire just to stir the pot and poke the heathens with a pointy stick. I really do detest the concept of needing to purchase a permit to own anything - from "exotic" pets to things that go boom in the night. Heck, I'm not really content about needing to have a permit to keep my toys out of the sight of the weenies that get all panty-wadded at the mere sight of them but even more discombobulated at the thought that I might maybe be carrying one without having been "inspected, infected and injected" - to coin a phrase someone else used once.
stay safe.
skidmark,
If it's any consolation, I've had e-mails taken the wrong way with SCI-FI, my oldest and dearest friend, because of the flat tone of the internet.
I took your comment in the spirit in which you intended. :)
Post a Comment