New York must modify tough gun laws to make it less vulnerable to legal assault ...

[spin]

New York is loosening the superstringent rules for obtaining a gun in the city.

***snip***

New York's laws have a fat target on their backs - one that gun-lobby attorneys are sure to exploit.

For one, the prices are high enough that they're sure to be challenged as discriminatory against the poor. Absurd? Perhaps - but it worked in knocking down the Chicago and D.C. laws.

So a bill before the City Council would lower the application fees from $340 to a scale that tops out at $110 for a carry permit - and goes down to $25 for other kinds of licenses.

The new law would also eliminate the need to get applications notarized and put the necessary forms online, eliminating a trip to 1 Police Plaza.

Smartly, the law would keep in place the fingerprinting and rigorous background checks the NYPD does now.

The Council should pass this law with all due speed. Disarm the legal critics - and protect the core of the city's tough gun laws.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/11/08/2010-11-08_biting_the_bullet.html#ixzz14iV8COMF

Note: the comments to the article are very interesting.

[cleanhippie]

1. And cue the usual suspects with the usual debunked talking points in 3..2..1..

[RSillsbee]

3. Damn, you called that good. EOM

[tridim]

2. How does this affect you in Florida?

[one-eyed fat man]

4. about the same way

Slavery affected abolitionists in Ohio or Michigan It was an affront to their concept of civil rights and human dignity. But then who knows, you might think the 13th and 14th amendment suck as badly as you say the 2nd does? Or that women should be content with being barefoot and pregnant? Or that DADT is sound policy too.

Pesky thing, that Bill of Rights.

[tridim]

5. This is about fees in one state, not the Constitution.

But, the overreaction is certainly typical for the gungeon. So good work, I guess.

[one-eyed fat man]

7. So you are big fan of the Sullivan Law?

I guess Tammany Hall, "Boss" Tweed and the Irish mob passing laws to cut down competition from the Italian mob is your idea of Democracy in action?

Doubtless, you should aspire to the same fate as "Big Tim."

When Sullivan received Tammany’s nomination for Congress in 1902, The New York Times registered its disgust. “If Sullivan is not the most disreputable predatory politician in Tammany he is at least not more than one or two places distant,” The Times wrote. “All his life he has been the type and embodiment of everything that is vile in the organization.”

The only gun laws you have ever complained were those that allowed ordinary law abiding citizens to have them.

[SteveM]

8. "...about fees in one state, not the Constitution." Please try again:

Excessive fees charged in order to exercise ones constitutional rights has already been found unconstitutional. Think: poll tax.

Your misconceptions are "...certainly typical for the ."

[one-eyed fat man]

9. This is about fees in one state, not the Constitution.

January 23, 1964.

The 24th Amendment Ended the Poll Tax. Then no doubt that amendment pisses you off as well! Many Southern states adopted a poll tax in the late 1800s. This meant that even though the 15th Amendment gave former slaves the right to vote, many poor people, both blacks and whites, did not have enough money to vote.

Text"Do you know I've never voted in my life, never been able to exercise my right as a citizen because of the poll tax?"
"Mr. Trout" to Mr. Pike, interviewer, Atlanta, Georgia. American Life Histories, 1936 - 1940.

More than 20 years after "Mr. Trout" spoke those words, the poll tax was abolished. At the ceremony in 1964 formalizing the 24th Amendment, President Lyndon Johnson noted that: "There can be no one too poor to vote." Thanks to the 24th Amendment, the right of all U.S. citizens to freely cast their votes has been secured.



The idea the 'those people' have their rights guaranteed by the same Constitution that safeguards yours must really make your head hurt!

[bossy22]

10. its not only about fees

the NYC permitting law is now probably the worst in the nation. Fees are just the tip of the iceberg. In so many words you can be denied a permit for just farting the wrong way. There is almost no due process, it can take over a year sometimes, and once you get it and you think you are in the clear- not so fast. Want to register a gun- well you have 72 hrs from the time of purchase to register it or they yank your permit- but here is the catch- they only register guns between the hows of 10am-2pm- right in the middle of the work day. If you happen to bring your gun in and it has a scope on it or any optics- boom there goes your permit (according to the NYPD licensing bureau the gun MUST be brought in without any accessories attached). also, the civilian employees there are just downright nasty. You get talked down to with an attitude just for asking for an explanation of some new regulation- not to mention their is absolutely no professionalism there. You can be waiting on line forever while these people just sit and watch TV because they happened to have started lunch late.

This law is not about keeping guns out of the wrong hands- its about discouraging gun ownership outright. You can accomplish such safegaurds in a less restrictive manner.

[tridim]

11. Discouraging gun ownership is good.

I know you gun folks will never understand that.

[spin]

12. Feel free to explain why. Please educate us. (n/t)

[bossy22]

13. not necessarily

you are entitled to your views, im entitled to mine- but that gives you no right to impose your views legally upon me. Throw in that their is a constitutional right to own a gun and your arguement loses even more steam. Thats the problem with sin taxes- they are rarely based in factual logic.

on edit: there is no concrete to evidence to back up your statement; neither is there any concrete evidence support the opposite position. also if you want to discourage people- atleast do it honestly and fairly- do an ad campaign or run "public educational seminars"- don't do it by treating the people who choose to engage in this legal activity like 2nd class citizens who are social outcasts

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shadowrider]

16. See the pic in my sig line? Discouraging gun ownership worked out well for them

Don't you agree?

[tridim]

17. You just lost the debate.

Enjoy ignore.

[lawodevolution]

21. No you are about to lose the debate

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=339915&mesg_id=339915

Living in a nation with low gun ownership rate increases the chance of being murdered by 5 times backed up by a t test with 95 % confidence interval. Data taken from 2007 small arms survey and murder rates by nation.

It turns out that nations with very high rates of violent crime have low gun ownership rates, so something in those countries has already discouraged gun ownership, and look at the results.

[spin]

27. You were debating? I see no evidence of that. (n/t)

[jazzhound]

20. I know a lifelong liberal Democrat who could destroy

your specious arguments without working up the slightest sweat. (As far as that goes, the pro gun-rights folks on this board could also.)

His credentials far exceed yours and mine:

http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/p/faculty-gary-kleck.php

Try taking the blinders off. The sunlight will feel wonderful.

[jancantor]

24. Any law/fee structure etc.

That "discourages" people from exercising their constitutional rights is automatically suspect. Whether the law is designed with that intent in mind, or just has that effect (de facto discrimination), that alone makes it open to challenge.

The govt. is within their rights to charge "reasonable" fees. For example, govt. can charge a reasonable photocopying fee for those that are exercising their rights under FOIA to documents e.g. $.05 a page.

If you want to get copies of a police report and they said "fine, but that's going to be $500 per page", that would be excessive.

[friendly_iconoclast]

28. Discouraging voting by poor people is good.

I know you civil rights folks will never understand that.

[Euromutt]

30. We might understand if you bother to try explaining

So add me as another person asking "why is discouraging gun ownership good?"

In all fairness, you should be prepared for the eventuality that we may take issue with the reasons you give, especially if they involve scenarios of people with little or no history of interpersonal violence succumbing without warning to a sudden fit of rage and killing a partner, family member or friend only because they happened to have a firearm available. Because that doesn't actually happen.

[proteus_lives]

33. Having access to your Rights is good.

I know you authoritarian folks will never understand that.

[spin]

15. True, unless you are rich or a celebrity ...

Lifestyles of the rich and packin': High-profile celebrities seeking gun permits on the rise
Monday, September 27th 2010, 4:00 AM


Never fear J.Lo - your husband Marc Anthony is one of dozens of celebrities authorized to carry a concealed weapon in New York City.

J.Lo and her 2-year-old twins can rest easy at night: Daddy is packing heat.

Singer Marc Anthony is one of dozens of celebs, millionaires and high-profile athletes authorized to carry a concealed weapon in the city, records show.

And the number of A-listers who have guns is growing.

"We have seen an increase in celebs seeking their own permits," said John Skylar Chambers, a lawyer who has helped New Yorkers get gun permits for more than 20 years.

***snip***

Other big names licensed to carry a gun include actor Robert De Niro, shock jock Howard Stern and supermarket mogul John Catsimatidis. Billionaire Donald Trump and his son, Donald Jr.; celebrity lawyer David Breitbart, and artificial-heart inventor Robert Jarvik can also carry steel, police records reveal.

Mets third-baseman David Wright has a permit to keep a gun in his city penthouse. Martha Stewart's daughter, radio host Alexis Stewart, also has a permit.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/09/27/2010-09-27_celebrities_seeking_pistol_permits_on_the_rise_in_the_city_lifestyles_of_rich_n_.html#ixzz14j01wInS


Note that I have no problem with celebrities having carry permits BUT they are in no way more deserving than the common individual who may face far more danger on a daily basis then the rich and famous do living in their upscale guarded communities.

It's easy to see just how unfair New York Cities gun laws are.

[PavePusher]

18. So, paid your First, Fourth and Thirteenth Amendment fees this year?

Got a receipt?

[jancantor]

23. excessive fees ARE an affront to the Constitution.

Ever heard of Poll Taxes?

[spin]

6. I happen to believe that ALL citizens of our nations should enjoy ...

the rights guaranteed by our Constitution.

Why should I be a first class citizen in Florida and if I move to NYC suddenly become a second class citizen?

In Florida I can buy a firearm without any license or approval from any government bureaucrat. All I have to do is walk into the store, pick the firearm, fill out a form, pass a telephone NICS background check, pay the clerk and walk out with the firearm. (Note: if I did not have a concealed carry permit I would have to wait 3 business days to buy a handgun unless I trade in another handgun.)

I don't have to take the firearm to a police station to have it checked and I don't have to register it.

I can carry a loaded handgun in my car as long as it is securely encased (for example in a unlocked glove box).

Florida has "shall issue" concealed carry. I don't have to kiss someones ass to be able to get a permit. The cost is reasonable ($117 for 7 years plus the cost of a class, passport photo and fingerprints.)

The only thing that we lack is open carry which is not real important to me.

(Disclaimer: I am not an attorney nor do I play one on DU. Any statements about Florida gun law should be researched at
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0790/0790.html)

[oneshooter]

19. Even better, with a Texas CHL there is no NCIS check needed. n/t

[lawodevolution]

22. I like that

[oneshooter]

25. Also in Texas I can carry a loaded handgun in my car as long as it is concealed from view. n/t

[spin]

26. I have to admit that I like Texas gun law. (n/t)

[DeadEyeDyck]

34. why is it not a shock to people that

the places that have the most restrictive gun laws, Chicago, NYC, DC have the highest murder rates in the country.
Duh!

[spin]

35. Largely because the politicians in those cities ...

were able to make themselves look good by passing laws that had little or no effect on criminals but did make firearm ownership difficult for honest citizens.

Such laws enable the politicians to look like they are truly concerned with the violence in their communities and to impress the voters that they deserve to be reelected. This approach worked for a long time until voters in many areas of he country became fed up with the rising crime rate and decided to pass RKBA friendly laws such as "shall issue" concealed carry.

The politicians in many cities realizing that the voters would no longer simply be satisfied with ineffective anti-RKBA laws had to take action, Many chose to improve the police departments in their cities and to target the people who misuse firearms, the criminals.

I believe that's the reason we see a falling crime rate in our nation. Pro-active policing IS effective. It's not cheap but it works.

The cities who still push the worn out idea of draconian gun control for honest people are the cities that had a population that is largely unfamiliar with firearms and the legitimate use of firearms for hunting, target shooting and self defense. Many of the citizens of those cities absolutely hate firearms because their only experience is with the criminal misuse of these weapons. The voters love politicians that hate firearms too.

Two prime examples of such cities are Chicago and Washington D.C. Eventually the voters in those cities will figure out that the violent crime problems in their cities are not caused by honest gun owners but by criminals and the politicians that really don't want to address and solve the problem.

[Euromutt]

29. I love that "Absurd? Perhaps" bit

I interpret that to actually mean: "Absurd? We'd like to claim it is, but we can't come up with a decent argument why it's absurd, so we're just going to heavily insinuate that it is, adding a 'perhaps' to provide deniability and hopefully make us come across as thoughtful rather than two-faced."

The notion that a high price on something is discriminatory against the poor is, on the face of it, indeed absurd. Discrimination, in the legal and political sense, is distinguishing between individuals on the basis of factors irrelevant to making that distinction; it is not discrimination, for example, that an employee does not get maternity leave if she hasn't actually had a baby. Similarly, not having enough money to afford something is not necessarily evidence of discrimination.

However, in this case, you're not paying for an actual good or service; you're paying to be allowed to do something without being arrested and prosecuted as a result. Does it really cost $340 to process an application for a carry permit? Especially when you consider the salaries of the personnel doing the job are presumably already being paid for out of local taxes. I doubt that. So if the service provided doesn't actually cost $340 to perform, the purpose of the exorbitant fee can be only be explained as an threshold that's intentionally set too high for most people to bother with. And that is indeed discriminatory against the poor; there's nothing absurd about that notion.

[benEzra]

31. I wonder if they feel it is "absurd" to consider poll taxes

to be discriminatory against the poor. It is very much the same thing; make exercising a given right expensive enough that "those people who aren't like us" won't bother.

[Ter]

32. Lowering the price is still illegal

You can't charge for a right guaranteed in the Constitution.