"How much does this lecture class and "test" cost each applicant?"
Fee varies depending upon instructor (individual versus company) but in the neighborhood of $125.00.
For $125.00 the student receives the NRA Basic Pistol Training Course and associated materials as well as range time. The class provides an avenue for the students to converse with one another and the instructor, ask any questions, etc. The range time can be straight range or dynamic range depending upon where you take the class. The dynamic range time is quite nice for the $125 price tag: identifying bad versus good, standing, kneeling, prone, etc. I'm certain someone somewhere will state the class was lame (DISCLAIMER) but everyone I've spoke with regarding it found it an excellent value for the $125 price tag. Research I've completed shows that $125 for 10+ hours of class and range time is very affordable.
"If it cost anything, it directly impedes the law-abiding poor from asserting a constitutionally held right to bear arms for self-defense."
So is your argument A) against a fee associated with the training (paid to the instructor), B) against a fee associated with obtaining the actual permit (paid to the sheriff), and/or C) against any fee, direct or indirect, charged to ALL Amendments or only the Second Amendment?
"After all, the poor often live in high crime areas, and the argument could be made that if anyone needs to be armed in public, it would be those who live in high crime areas. "
I know you do, so what is your argument then against using demographics and statistics as a deciding factor in the fees associated with training and permit application and renewal? Taking your statement above could the governments simply not then charge only those living in low crime areas and those with an income level above 'X' the fee and subsidize those living in the high crime areas? Sounds silly, doesn't it?
"Also, we already pay a tax for a license so that we can assert the "bear" part of our constitutional right, should we really be adding on more tax and cost onto this right? "
It isn't a cost factor for me. It's more simple: I prefer that those who want to possess a concealed carry permit go through a basic firearms class and range session. That's my opinion. That does not translate into everyone coming out of the class demonstrating safe handling of a firearm at all times, etc. However, a percentage of students will learn and remember something from the experience and that percentage is better than none to me. Remember, the training is a one time cost. The renewal cost for the permit is always there. Very similar to driver's education wherein the student pays once for the education and keeps renewing their driver's license (Not an Amendment I'm aware).
" Would you be for a "freedom of speech tax" for a freedom of speech license?"
We could delve into all types of scenarios and analogies, but if you believe that freedom of speech is free then you might want to remove the wool from your eyes.
Because there are both direct and indirect costs associated with "freedom" of speech.
"Also, I assume this multiple choice test is in the written form correct? How about if a person doesn't read very well or have very good reading comprehension skills. Lets say they are uneducated or have a learning disability, should they be barred from asserting their constitutional right to bear a firearm for self-defense? All because they do not do well on test, reading comprehension, or have a learning disability?"
Or for that matter what if they can only read upside down to get enough oxygen to their brain and there's no hanging bar available to them? Or what if they can speak and read only Italian but the test is in English (just as the firearms manual is only in English)? Or what if the student ...
By the way, so I presume from your statements above that you are against the form 4473, correct? Because that form certainly would pose problems for those who cannot read very well, comprehend well, etc.
Yes, the test is presented on paper to the students. Any student can ask the instructor anything they want. I'm certain that most instructors would work with a student on whatever level they need.
"Only the educated should be able to bear a firearm? WOW! I think I straight up missed that part in the 2nd Amendment where it says, "Shall not be infringed, except if you are uneducated or poor.""
Let's split hairs: you'd best be educated about your rights and the laws because if you are not you may quickly find yourself in a place you don't wish to be. Freedom of speech gets folks in trouble every year, putting them in a place they didn't think they'd be because they thought they had freedom of speech. However, perhaps a little education would have helped them along the way and they wouldn't have ended up in that position.
And again, who is arguing the class fee and the permit fee are unreasonable? Stands to reason that the "poor" you refer to would have banded together by now and made their voice known. Fact of the matter is, I think, you simply want to be able to carry whenever wherever without any Government intervention, and so arguing that the class fee (and not the permit fee, not yet at least) is unfair to the uneducated/under-educated and the poor is the pony you'll ride in on.
"$125?!?! Goodness, with that price, and I'm guessing an addition cost for the license we're talking well over twice what Georgians pay for their GWL. "
If $125 for 10 hours of firearms training, class and range, is unreasonable then ...
By the way, where is your response that in Ohio one can carry openly without a permit yet in Georgia one has to pay for a carry permit in order to carry openly? Should you not be arguing to the Government of Georgia that the permit fee is too high, that there should be no fees, and that you should be able to open carry without a permit?
"That is certainly restrictive to poor people."
Robin Hood, seeing how you're so vocal about firearms training and the poor, does this passion extend to ALL areas of assistance and understanding? Are you asking for lower driver's license fees for the poor? Are you opening your home and business to assisting the poor? Would you sell them groceries at a lower price, simply because they are "poor" as you've defined it? After all, the right to eat is a staple, isn't it?
It certainly appears that your driving force, the more you respond, is not against people being educated on firearms and safe handling of firearms, but against Government imposing what you view as restrictions on your rights. I'm not arguing anything about the Second Amendment, I was simply stating what my opinion is on the Ohio permit process. By the way, even after your dissertation I believe it's a good thing - having folks educated. On anything, but especially firearms. And you better start your public support now, because rumors are that Georgia may be moving to something similar to Ohio.
"Lastly, how about the time off of work, if someone is working, to go to this training, take the test, and shoot the firearm?"
Do you have this same sentiment regarding the driver's license? The bar exam? And other such tests and requirements? Probably not, because it's absurd to argue all the possible scenarios about why or how requirements impose hardship upon the taker.
I won't touch the understanding the Amendments bit here because it's off-topic for this firearms forum. I will give you something to think about: Do you think that something written more than two hundred years ago applies as-is today? Or is there room for the possibility for change?