If that pesky Second Amendment and the Heller ruling affirm that you can’t keep American citizens from carrying firearms, the least you to do to promote gun control is to charge confiscatory fees for exercising that right.
The New York Times reports that New Jersey Gov. Philip Murphy has proposed raising the state fee for owning and carrying a gun from $27 to $550.
Having a gun in New Jersey could soon cost 20 times as much: Gov. Philip Murphy’s proposed fees — $550 to own and carry a gun, up from $27 — would be among the highest in the U.S. https://t.co/Pb4VQZcpW9
— The New York Times (@nytimes) April 22, 2019
Should call it the “Leave the Poor Defenseless Act.” https://t.co/XMJrxlyNj4
— Derek Hunter (@derekahunter) April 23, 2019
Remember that awesome ratio when “Kimberly” argued, “People from low-income areas are usually not educated enough to find jobs/make a living and shouldn’t have guns,” adding, “Why should they have to protect their families if they don’t possess things that people might want to steal?”
So sure, let’s price gun ownership right out of the hands of a lot of people. Poor people don’t have anything anyone would want to steal anyway.
Democrats are Jim Crowing again.
— Antonio Martinez (@djtechchicago) April 22, 2019
This is de facto discrimination against economically disadvantaged people by unreasonably burdening their ability to exercise a Constitutionally protected right.
— ROCK THUNDERPUNCH (@RokThunderpunch) April 22, 2019
Pricing the poor out of a constitutional right.
In other words, an unconstitutional poll tax.
— Kevin Boyd? ?? (@TheKevinBoyd) April 22, 2019
Way to go, NJ, you're canceling the Bill of Rights for those that aren't wealthy!#2A
— NonAggressionPrinciple (@NonAggressionP1) April 22, 2019
This re-packaged poll tax is as fundamentally, constitutionally flawed as the original.
It didn't pass constitutional muster to tax away the right to vote, nor will it pass constitutional muster to tax away the right to bear arms.— Michele Blood (@BloodBrief) April 22, 2019
Basically, the poor aren’t allowed to own guns.
— The Real Lee (@XxTheRealLeexX) April 22, 2019
Great. Make it even MORE prohibitive (class warfare, anyone?) for low income folks to protect themselves and their families with a firearm. You know, because crime is so much lower in low income areas….
— Mark Fermin (@Evil_Beagle) April 22, 2019
Nothing like pricing the most vulnerable out of being able to protect themselves.
— Marilyn Washabaugh (@WazzuCoug94) April 23, 2019
I can't really see SCOTUS treating this as anything other than an unreasonable burden infringing on a Constitutional right. But, okay.
— GodOfRadio (@godofradio) April 22, 2019
Clearly everyone in Newark will abide by these rules.
— Damon A. Salvadore (@DamonSalvadore1) April 22, 2019
Gun owners will see him in court. Good luck with that.
— Alex Zelinski (@A_Zelinski) April 23, 2019
Sounds a bit infringey.
— Squadron Gentleman (@this_we_defend) April 22, 2019
In other words, making it even harder for minority and single mother firearm owners to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed God-given right?
— Regs (@r3gulations) April 22, 2019
Great! Then rich people will be the only people with guns! ?
— Bob Bronson (@BobBron1) April 22, 2019
— Derick Young (@dericklyoung) April 22, 2019
This is just Democrats wanting to disarm the poor. They did the same thing with Jim Crow and voting. Expect nothing different.
— Unanimous Consent (@uconsent) April 22, 2019
“Gotta keep guns out of the hands of the law abiding poor people.”
– New Jersey— EvilJester ☠ (@EvilJester01) April 22, 2019
So the poor will not be able to protect themselves, those with means will do as they always do and criminals will continue to prey upon those they know can’t afford the “fee”…liberal logic at its finest!
— Craig Coughlin (@cough6609) April 22, 2019
But only for law-abiding citizens. Criminals, you're good.
— Amie Whatserface (@AmieWohrer) April 22, 2019
Making it too expensive for economically disadvantaged citizens to participate in their Constitutionally given rights is wrong, whether it is voting, speech, assembly, or protection of their families. This should not stand.
— Matt Snavely (@mattsnavely) April 23, 2019
And they’re wondering why people are fleeing that garbage state for places like Florida, Arizona and New Mexico…? LOL!
— Max Ghezzi (@maxghezzi) April 22, 2019
Good idea. Hurt lawful gun owners, and keep guns in the hands of criminals, which aren’t paying his stupid license fees to be begin with.
— Ernest HODLway 2.0 (@hodlway2) April 22, 2019
As a NJ resident, I've never been too interested in buying a gun. But if this proposal is voted yes on, I'm going to rush to get myself a gun (or few) before this goes through. That's tyranny right there.
— justineanne (@justine02372712) April 22, 2019
This isn't going to end well
— Manus (@JamesDolphino) April 22, 2019
If dems don't want people to have guns, why aren't they providing non-lethal self-defense weapons to people who need them? You want to take people's means of self-defense and replace it with nothing? It's almost as if they don't actually care about the people…
— John Smith (@VbetNG) April 22, 2019
The Dems miss the good ol' days when they could charge poll taxes.
— Redcloak the Horrifying (@BrewingAle) April 22, 2019
Related:
NRA, two other pro-Second Amendment groups file suit against Seattle's new 'gun violence tax' http://t.co/PdMRf7BybE
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) August 24, 2015
Join the conversation as a VIP Member