[Malum Prohibitum]

"It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax â€" a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution."

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Is the First Amendment better than the Second Amendment?

 

[slabertooch]

they are all equal, and all re-enforce each other (the originals).

 

[Ashe]

Does that mean we could file a breif against the state to stop charging for GFL's?

 

[Thorsen]

Is the First Amendment better than the Second Amendment?

I would argue that the second is the most important because it provides a manner with which to ultimately uphold the validity of the other constitutional amendments. But then I may just be crazy like that.

 

[Marikhal]

Does that mean we could file a breif against the state to stop charging for GFL's?

You could, but you would most likely lose.

Sad, isn't it?

 

[wsweeks2]

Does that mean we could file a breif against the state to stop charging for GFL's?

You could, but you would most likely lose.

Sad, isn't it?

You only fail if you fail to try.

 

[Axeman]

Is the First Amendment better than the Second Amendment?

I would argue that the second is the most important because it provides a manner with which to ultimately uphold the validity of the other constitutional amendments. But then I may just be crazy like that.

+10000000000000000000

 

[Gunstar1]

Does that mean we could file a breif against the state to stop charging for GFL's?

You could, but you would most likely lose.

Sad, isn't it?

You only fail if you fail to try.

Not true if you think of bringing it to the GA supreme court. They have ruled twice the 2nd is not binding on Georgia.

 

[wsweeks2]

Does that mean we could file a breif against the state to stop charging for GFL's?

You could, but you would most likely lose.

Sad, isn't it?

You only fail if you fail to try.

Not true if you think of bringing it to the GA supreme court. They have ruled twice the 2nd is not binding on Georgia.

Wouldn't it be nice to get a Federal case against GA that would be binding?

 

[viper32cm]

Wouldn't it be nice to get a Federal case against GA that would be binding?

The 2nd Amendment is not binding on the states according to precedent. Originally the amendments were only a check on the federal government's power, but after the 14th amendment the bill of rights was incorporated as restrictions on the state. The rub is that not all of the amendments have been incorporated, most notably the 2nd.

Everyone loves the 1st especially if it can be used to support things that weren't in the framers original intent. Not so the second.

 

[Wiley]

"It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax â€" a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution."

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Two falicies with that argument in The Great and Soverign State of Georgia. First, the fees, which are not taxes, are to defray the reasonable cost of of performing the services imposed and required by the State. Secondly, within the bounds of the law, one may enjoy the right, freely and unencumbered of any fees. Additionally, the State has a well established interest in keeping those certain classes of 'citizens' in check while still being able to profit from their existance. The State has a duty to restrict by any means necessary to protect that interest.

The contention that the fees are exobitant is immaterial.

 

[Ashe]

exorbitant? Heck you have not looked into the cost of the fees in other states have you? I think I woyud rather pay 25 than 250....

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

"It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax â€" a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution."

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Two falicies with that argument in The Great and Soverign State of Georgia. First, the fees, which are not taxes, are to defray the reasonable cost of of performing the services imposed and required by the State. Secondly, within the bounds of the law, one may enjoy the right, freely and unencumbered of any fees. Additionally, the State has a well established interest in keeping those certain classes of 'citizens' in check while still being able to profit from their existance. The State has a duty to restrict by any means necessary to protect that interest.

The contention that the fees are exobitant is immaterial.

New law. No speaking about politics outside of your home, car, or place of business without a license. Fee will "defray" the cost of administering the license program, which takes anywhere from several days to 2.5 years to issue.

 

[Wiley]

exorbitant? Heck you have not looked into the cost of the fees in other states have you? I think I woyud rather pay 25 than 250....

If the fees are to low to prevent those certain classes from exersizing their rights, increase them. By current GA law any monies over that required to carry out the legal requirements goes into the general fund. Win-win for the state.

New law. No speaking about politics outside of your home, car, or place of business without a license. Fee will "defray" the cost of administering the license program, which takes anywhere from several days to 2.5 years to issue.

So? The only change that is needed is a provision that when in your car you must have the area between your nostrils and chin fully exposed to view. If you do not you may be chaged with 'concealed talking', a felony.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Think of the fee as paying protection money.

 

[Wiley]

Frankly, the whole idea of charging to exersize a Right is nothing more than a method of control. Those who can't afford the fee are denied the Right. The 'Saturday Night Special' laws are exactly the same. The government has mandated a firearm cost x amount precluding those in most need of a firearm access to one. Again, keeping that 'certain class' in it's place and dependent upon government. And I'll add 'training' and 'proficency' requirements to the list also.

And as I think of it, no other Right has a price tag. To exersize the First one is not required to use a writing instrument of a higher than some unspecifed quality, or paper of a certain quality or have training or proficency in their use.

 

[gsusnake]

Frankly, the whole idea of charging to exersize a Right is nothing more than a method of control. Those who can't afford the fee are denied the Right. The 'Saturday Night Special' laws are exactly the same. The government has mandated a firearm cost x amount precluding those in most need of a firearm access to one. Again, keeping that 'certain class' in it's place and dependent upon government. And I'll add 'training' and 'proficency' requirements to the list also.

And as I think of it, no other Right has a price tag. To exersize the First one is not required to use a writing instrument of a higher than some unspecifed quality, or paper of a certain quality or have training or proficency in their use.

You're exactly right.

I don't know if you've read this, but if you haven't, you should.

 

[Wiley]

You're exactly right.

Well of course I am. I'm an ldtimer:. :wink:

I don't know if you've read this, but if you haven't, you should.

Many times. Just confirms what I already thought. Camilla Masacre even more. And Cramer's "Racist Roots of Gun Control"

My previous posts on this thread were to engage in a little debate taking the side opposite Murdock v. Penn. I refuse to force others to do what I want just as I can not be forced because I am armed, I must use reason and argumentation. And to do that I gotta practice.

There are many who profess to hold the Second as a Right and in the same breath object to allowing Citizens to exersize that Right with out training or evedence of proficency. Which when pinned down they come back to government licencing. Again denying a Right to those who most need it. If these so-called Second Amendment supporters can find any justification for or evedence of a government document imparting anything other than a lighter wallet I haven't heard it.

 

[GAGunOwner]

However Duncan v. Louisiana 391 U.S. 145 (1968), in dicta regarding the interpretation of Palko v. Connecticut 302 U.S. 319 (1937), indicates that all Amendments dealing with "ordered liberty" should be regarded as being incorporated according to the majority concurrence by Justice Black.[2]