davjohns 1 #1 March 27, 2012 http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/city-340-gun-permit-fee-upheld-manhattan-federal-court-article-1.1051200 Perfectly fair if they charge a similar fee for voting, free speech, religious expression, etc.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #2 March 27, 2012 Gosh, here in Texas the most you would pay for the state fee is $140. That fee is controlled by legislation to be a break-even operation, not for profit. The government should serve the people, not profit from them. I wonder why it costs so much more in New York? Texas concealed handgun fees: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/feesReqDocs.pdf My latest renewal was only $35, taking advantage of a veteran's discount. The NY fee sounds excessive to me. I wonder if people would stand for that if the fee to register to vote was that high, or to register their dog? The one thing for sure: they wouldn't artificially raise the fee to discourage people from getting one. Nah, that can't be it... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #3 March 27, 2012 QuotePerfectly fair if they charge a similar fee for voting, free speech, religious expression, etc. Nope. A $20 ID card is an affront to suffrage. But for a gun? All rights are equal, but some are less equal than others. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #4 March 27, 2012 Good point, Jerry. A $20 ID card would prevent voter fraud and is certainly useful for many things. However, people decry what it would do to the poor if it was required. But the poor would gladly spend $340 for a pistol permit according to this judge.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #5 March 27, 2012 >Perfectly fair if they charge a similar fee for voting, free speech, religious expression, etc. In many cases they do. Parade/demonstration permits often cost money, and of course poll taxes were common for years. But $340 is a bit over the top for a permit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #6 March 27, 2012 QuoteGood point, Jerry. A $20 ID card would prevent voter fraud and is certainly useful for many things. However, people decry what it would do to the poor if it was required. But the poor would gladly spend $340 for a pistol permit according to this judge. If I was being an intellectual purist, I'd say that any licensing fee to lawfully own personal arms is unconstitutional. I do feel that way about voter registration, and I also feel that way about fees and permits for First Amendment-protected activity, such as public demonstrations. I think a single dollar to exercise those rights is de facto unconstitutional, and I disagree with the (majority of) judges who think that I'd have the burden of production to show that such fees are burdensome. But unlike speech, and probably voting (caveat re: voting: felons? record checks?), I do think that it's reasonable for the government to assure that certain types of felons and people with certain types/severity of confirmed mental illnesses are denied access to guns. As a judge, the most I'd allow in that regard is a reasonable fee to cover the administrative cost, but not so high, regardless of the actual pro rata cost, as to amount to a de facto denial. It's obviously a floating scale, but, putting myself in the shoes of a federal judge, my gut tells me that $340 in 2012 dollars is stiff enough to infringe on some lower-income people's 2nd Amendment rights. ------------- ETA: (For those who don't know me...) Clarification re: "As a judge...etc." Badly/ambiguously phrased. I was speaking in the hypothetical. I'm not, nor have I ever been a judge. Just a journeyman attorney. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #7 March 27, 2012 QuoteGosh, here in Texas the most you would pay for the state fee is $140. That fee is controlled by legislation to be a break-even operation, not for profit. The government should serve the people, not profit from them. I wonder why it costs so much more in New York? Texas concealed handgun fees: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/feesReqDocs.pdf My latest renewal was only $35, taking advantage of a veteran's discount. The NY fee sounds excessive to me. I wonder if people would stand for that if the fee to register to vote was that high, or to register their dog? The one thing for sure: they wouldn't artificially raise the fee to discourage people from getting one. Nah, that can't be it... And note that it's $340 for 3 years, so your cost to own a gun is > 110/yr (and figure it will rise). Not clear what happens with gun #2, or if it is even allowed. But if you had just one quality gun, you'd pay, say $600 for the gun and then 340 + 50 (sales tax) + $15 (gun lock) + 28 (? DROS) in mandatory fees, or an add on of 70%. They're not going to be able to justify the cost here, so it will eventually be seen as a barrier to exercise rights. But not by a NYC judge. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #8 March 27, 2012 QuoteQuoteGood point, Jerry. A $20 ID card would prevent voter fraud and is certainly useful for many things. However, people decry what it would do to the poor if it was required. But the poor would gladly spend $340 for a pistol permit according to this judge. If I was being an intellectual purist, I'd say that any licensing fee to lawfully own personal arms is unconstitutional. I do feel that way about voter registration, and I also feel that way about fees and permits for First Amendment-protected activity, such as public demonstrations. I think a single dollar to exercise those rights is de facto unconstitutional, and I disagree with the (majority of) judges who think that I'd have the burden of production to show that such fees are burdensome. But unlike speech, and probably voting (caveat re: voting: felons? record checks?), I do think that it's reasonable for the government to assure that certain types of felons and people with certain types/severity of confirmed mental illnesses are denied access to guns. As a judge, the most I'd allow in that regard is a reasonable fee to cover the administrative cost, but not so high, regardless of the actual pro rata cost, as to amount to a de facto denial. It's obviously a floating scale, but, putting myself in the shoes of a federal judge, my gut tells me that $340 in 2012 dollars is stiff enough to infringe on some lower-income people's 2nd Amendment rights. I'm with you on your analysis. Just want to point out that felons are also inelligible to vote. We don't do anything to screen them...I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #9 March 27, 2012 QuoteJust want to point out that felons are also inelligible to vote. We don't do anything to screen them... Yeah, I really have no idea whether any states, or county boards of elections, do that (yet?) But with the pervasiveness and ease of access of database/internet technology, it's probably already doable, and may even become commonplace some day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #10 March 27, 2012 Quote my gut tells me that $340 in 2012 dollars is stiff enough to infringe on some lower-income people's 2nd Amendment rights. my gut tells me that someone's income level shouldn't be a differentiating factor in terms of protected rights - if it infringes on a lower-income person - why would you think it's not an infringement on a middle income or rich guy also? Edit: the only real question is this "are they doing it as means to grab revenue? or are they doing this as a backdoor means to restrict rights of private property ownership of guns specifically?" It could be both of course I'm less inclined to the whole social agenda than to just keep it simple and attribute it to government greedine$$. YMMV ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #11 March 27, 2012 QuoteBut unlike speech, and probably voting (caveat re: voting: felons? record checks?), I do think that it's reasonable for the government to assure that certain types of felons and people with certain types/severity of confirmed mental illnesses are denied access to guns. Do you think that the mentally ill should be allowed to vote? QuoteAs a judge, the most I'd allow in that regard is a reasonable fee to cover the administrative cost, but not so high, regardless of the actual pro rata cost, as to amount to a de facto denial. Would you support that same standard with the right to vote or free speech? Quotemy gut tells me that $340 in 2012 dollars is stiff enough to infringe on some lower-income people's 2nd Amendment rights. I agree. BTW, this tactic has been used before; NFA 1934. For me it is really simple..... If you would put that restriction on "X", then it should also have to be applied to "Y". If not, then you are restricting a right. So if you need an ID to buy a gun... You should need an ID to vote. If you need a permit for a gun... You should need a permit for free speech. If you need a background check for a gun... You should need a background check to assemble. All RIGHTS should have the same freedoms, not one standard for the ones an individual likes and another standard for the ones he does not like. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #12 March 27, 2012 First, Andy - thank you for having the anatomy to say what you think. And for actually demonstrating the issues that are faced with an "intellectual purist." But it's why I find myself on the side of giving equal dignity to all rights. I don't find the first amendment to be any more or less important than the second, fourth, etc. I also noted something that is telling as well: you mentioned your feelings. Then you mentioned your thoughts. Feelings are fine and they help control the way we act. But then you shelved the feelings and put in your thoughts. I do think that if more people were like you and differentiated between feelings and thoughts we'd get a lot further in this world. You stated some ideas about which I have some disagreement, but you stated them in a coherent way that did not demean those who think differently. Too bad you aren't a Cali lawyer. I'd be honored to get my ass kicked by you in court sometime. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #13 March 27, 2012 QuoteI don't find the first amendment to be any more or less important than the second, fourth, etc. Neither do I, at all. But the worst that can happen from a single instance of a felon or a crazy imprudently using his rights to speak or to vote is usually not going to be catastrophic, especially immediately so. But a felon or a crazy blowing someone's brains out is immediate, catastrophic and irreversible. For that reason, a minimal, but reasonable, level of regulation inserted into the mix, for the purpose of ensuring public safety, is not unconstitutional, IMO. As you know, the caselaw of most jurisdictions counsels against so blindly following the letter of a rule that the consequence is "an absurd result". I do not believe that the Founding Fathers, when they adopted the Second Amendment to the Constitution, intended the absurd result of letting raving lunatics loose in the public square with muskets in the name of preserving a free society from tyrants. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #14 March 28, 2012 Get a room, you two! Too many lawyers in here for me. :)I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #15 March 28, 2012 Quote I'm with you on your analysis. Just want to point out that felons are also inelligible to vote. We don't do anything to screen them... Depends entirely on your state. There in considerable variability--2 states allow felons to vote even while incarcerated for their offense and another 13+DC allow voting as soon as you are released."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #16 March 28, 2012 Quote And note that it's $340 for 3 years, so your cost to own a gun is > 110/yr (and figure it will rise). well, the fee he's referring to is his carry permit. Not an ownership permit. That doesn't exist in TX. The carry permit is good for at least 4 years. In some cases almost 6 (a renewed license expires on your next birthday after 5 years, so if your timing is right, you could almost get 6 years out of the fee). So John's cost to carry his gun is < $7/year, not > $110. His ownership cost to the state is zero.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #17 March 28, 2012 QuoteQuote And note that it's $340 for 3 years, so your cost to own a gun is > 110/yr (and figure it will rise). well, the fee he's referring to is his carry permit. Not an ownership permit. That doesn't exist in TX. The carry permit is good for at least 4 years. In some cases almost 6 (a renewed license expires on your next birthday after 5 years, so if your timing is right, you could almost get 6 years out of the fee). So John's cost to carry his gun is < $7/year, not > $110. His ownership cost to the state is zero. Kelp was referring to the NY permit with his cost analysis, not TX.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #18 March 28, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote And note that it's $340 for 3 years, so your cost to own a gun is > 110/yr (and figure it will rise). well, the fee he's referring to is his carry permit. Not an ownership permit. That doesn't exist in TX. The carry permit is good for at least 4 years. In some cases almost 6 (a renewed license expires on your next birthday after 5 years, so if your timing is right, you could almost get 6 years out of the fee). So John's cost to carry his gun is < $7/year, not > $110. His ownership cost to the state is zero. Kelp was referring to the NY permit with his cost analysis, not TX. Get a shotgun instead - the NYC shotgun permit is way cheaper and the shotgun is a better home defense weapon anyway.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #19 March 28, 2012 QuoteGet a shotgun instead... the shotgun is a better home defense weapon anyway. Are you advocating keeping a loaded shotgun in the home for self defense, instead of keeping it locked up in a safe where it's not immediately accessible? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #20 March 28, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote And note that it's $340 for 3 years, so your cost to own a gun is > 110/yr (and figure it will rise). well, the fee he's referring to is his carry permit. Not an ownership permit. That doesn't exist in TX. The carry permit is good for at least 4 years. In some cases almost 6 (a renewed license expires on your next birthday after 5 years, so if your timing is right, you could almost get 6 years out of the fee). So John's cost to carry his gun is < $7/year, not > $110. His ownership cost to the state is zero. Kelp was referring to the NY permit with his cost analysis, not TX. Get a shotgun instead - the NYC shotgun permit is way cheaper and the shotgun is a better home defense weapon anyway. Immaterial to the discussion, since the topic is a concealed carry permit.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #21 March 28, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote And note that it's $340 for 3 years, so your cost to own a gun is > 110/yr (and figure it will rise). well, the fee he's referring to is his carry permit. Not an ownership permit. That doesn't exist in TX. The carry permit is good for at least 4 years. In some cases almost 6 (a renewed license expires on your next birthday after 5 years, so if your timing is right, you could almost get 6 years out of the fee). So John's cost to carry his gun is < $7/year, not > $110. His ownership cost to the state is zero. Kelp was referring to the NY permit with his cost analysis, not TX. Get a shotgun instead - the NYC shotgun permit is way cheaper and the shotgun is a better home defense weapon anyway. Immaterial to the discussion, since the topic is a concealed carry permit. Not according to the OP: "THE CITY’S HEFTY $340 fee for a gun permit is constitutional, a judge declared Monday. Gun advocates claimed the fee to keep a legal gun in the home — $340 initially and for a renewal every three years — violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms because it was “exorbitant.” Reading is important.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #22 March 28, 2012 QuoteQuoteGet a shotgun instead... the shotgun is a better home defense weapon anyway. Are you advocating keeping a loaded shotgun in the home for self defense, instead of keeping it locked up in a safe where it's not immediately accessible? I'm advocating that a shotgun is a better home defense weapon than a handgun. Storing either of them safely is a different issue. Putting a loaded handgun under a mattress doesn't seem like such a good idea.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #23 March 28, 2012 QuoteQuote Get a shotgun instead - the NYC shotgun permit is way cheaper and the shotgun is a better home defense weapon anyway. Immaterial to the discussion, since the topic is a concealed carry permit. wear a longer jacket, sheeeesh ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #24 March 28, 2012 QuoteI'm advocating that a shotgun is a better home defense weapon than a handgun. It *can* be...in some circumstances. There's downsides to a shoulder weapon for home defense, as well. Maneuvering around the house (if you have to go get kids, for example), or needing to do anything with your hands (like having 911 on the phone) are easier with a handgun than a long gun.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #25 March 28, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote And note that it's $340 for 3 years, so your cost to own a gun is > 110/yr (and figure it will rise). well, the fee he's referring to is his carry permit. Not an ownership permit. That doesn't exist in TX. The carry permit is good for at least 4 years. In some cases almost 6 (a renewed license expires on your next birthday after 5 years, so if your timing is right, you could almost get 6 years out of the fee). So John's cost to carry his gun is < $7/year, not > $110. His ownership cost to the state is zero. Kelp was referring to the NY permit with his cost analysis, not TX. Get a shotgun instead - the NYC shotgun permit is way cheaper and the shotgun is a better home defense weapon anyway. ???? If true (first I've heard of it), then there is a fee that is not calculated to cover the costs of background checks, but just to disuade people from a constitutional right. Is that what I'm hearing? Besides, background checks are already provided at time of purchase and cost nothing to the state.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
