Oppression of a civil right. Gun ownership minimal cost compared.

[lawodevolution]

In Texas the minimal gun cost would be 80 bucks for a mosin and about 20 bucks for transfer.

In NYC let's say you can get the rifle and transfer for 100 bucks also, next add in the 140 and 94.25 in fees the minimal cost comes out to 334.25.

So the minimal cost to owning at least one firearm is over 3 times higher in NYC than Texas.

Large cities are populated by mostly liberals, is it wise for liberals to oppress the gun ownership of liberals?

[Webster Green]

1. Everything is more expensive in NYC than in Texas.

Really.

[lawodevolution]

4. Mostly just rent, food is about the same and any product you can buy online is about the same

[petronius]

5. True, but I'm guessing that the OP's point is that the latter two entries (140 and 94) are fees

that don't even exist in TX, so cost-of-living differences don't apply. Rather, it's a question of NY adding financial barriers to discourage gun ownership (a 'sin tax', basically)...

[inademv]

6. Or an enforcement tax

to help fund law enforcement activities to cut down on gun crime...

[petronius]

7. They may frame it that way, but it's hardly a valid reason - why should people buying guns legally

and complying with the regulation bear any special responsibility for funding law enforcement activity? It's analogous to (and even less just than) the practice of adding a charge to recordable media to compensate copyright holders for the 'lost' revenue of piracy.

No, i think the OP has it right and these fees are just back-door gun control...

[inademv]

8. To be precise

The right to own guns is not affected by the costs associated with acquiring them in a legal sense, regardless of your personal feelings on the matter. Furthermore, the opinions of anyone on this board are quite frankly moot on the matter since the law surrounding the fees in question is quite settled. I would encourage individuals with the proper credentials to pursue changes to laws they feel unjust but for the sake of this discussion, "it infringes on my rights" isn't a sufficient argument in this case for the fees being removed.

[petronius]

9. That's not strictly true - financial barriers intended to curtail the exercise of a right

can very easily become legal issues. However, the legality of the NY fees (I take it you now agree they're intended to discourage gun ownership?) wasn't the question in this thread, the question is whether they're a good idea. My answer to that is that arbitrary fees intended to hinder otherwise legal activities are a dishonest practice, and an end-run around the spirit of our legal system...

[inademv]

10. No I do not agree

I assert that the purpose of the fees is to offset the increased cost of enforcement in an environment affected by the market for gun sales. When there are increased costs of maintenance of the social structure and security because of a specific activity, namely the purchase and transfer of ownership of a firearm in New York, then it only makes sense for the individuals engaging in said activity, when elective such as firearm ownership is, to support the extra costs that they are inflicting on the system.

[petronius]

11. What increased cost is the legal, regulation-following gun buyer inflicting on the social system?

You seem to be implying that gun owners are responsible for criminal gun users: if I own a gun, and some random person I've never heard of commits a crime with one, am I more responsible for the impact of that crime than my non-gun-owning neighbor?

[Hoyt]

15. How many guns purchased by so-called law-abiding citizens eventually end up being used in a crime?

A bunch.

Sometimes guns are stolen; sometimes the guns are sold illegally by supposedly legal gun stores; sometimes the guns are purchased at roving gun outlets/shows; sometimes the original purchaser buys the gun (or accessories such as hi-cap mags) to make a profit in private (back alley) sales; etc.

Hence, each gun sold/manufactured represents a potential long-term cost to society. They ought to be subject to fees/taxed to offset the cost -- law enforcement, medical, legal, and the like. Heck, they ought to be subject to annual fees/taxes just like automobiles.

[Atypical Liberal]

18. Blame the victim?

How many guns purchased by so-called law-abiding citizens eventually end up being used in a crime?

A bunch.

Sometimes guns are stolen; sometimes the guns are sold illegally by supposedly legal gun stores; sometimes the guns are purchased at roving gun outlets/shows; sometimes the original purchaser buys the gun (or accessories such as hi-cap mags) to make a profit in private (back alley) sales; etc.

Hence, each gun sold/manufactured represents a potential long-term cost to society. They ought to be subject to fees/taxed to offset the cost -- law enforcement, medical, legal, and the like.

So, we're going to blame the victim of a crime and on top of their victimization we are now going to punish them with a fine to help prosecute the people who victimized them in the first place? Sorry, but that is just bullshit.


Heck, they ought to be subject to annual fees/taxes just like automobiles.

In most places, they already are. You don't need any tags, licenses, or registration to use automobiles on private property. Firearms are the same way.

[inademv]

19. Maybe if the fee was imposed after the fact

but it is a surcharge at the point of purchase. Think of it like insurance that you only have to pay once.

[PavePusher]

53. We can do the same with books, amIright?

Great harm caused by many of those books, yes indeed....

[Hoyt]

21. No, I'm blaming those building an arsenal and promoting gun proliferation (especially in public).

They are thinking only about themselves. More guns are not an answer, and I'm tired of paying the costs of gun proliferation.

[Katya Mullethov]

22. And we grew tired of housing , feeding , and defending multirecidivist scum

And so they let us shoot them .

[Hoyt]

23. Enjoy your hunt.

[Katya Mullethov]

33. Thanks , but we already got one this year

Well , the dogs did , I didnt . How about you ?
Do they test the wire there as well ?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. So people exercising their rights and enjoying a hobby are now selfish and evil

What a droll defense of repressive classist and racist laws.

[Hoyt]

28. So building a weapons cache is your hobby. Come on.

[Atypical Liberal]

30. Define a weapons cache.

I own about 3 shotguns, 5 pistols, and 6-7 rifles. Many are family heirlooms.

Mostly I target shoot. I also shoot competitively.

Do I have a "weapons cache"? Is my hobby not a legitimate hobby?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

34. You are so glib with such terms, but never define them

What does a weapons cache mean to you? How many? What kinds? If someone collects every model of a 303 Enfield, is that a cache?

Broad brush smears do not cut it.

[Atypical Liberal]

29. No, you are blaming the victims of theft.

No, let's not mince words here. What you are doing is blaming the victims of theft for the actions of the thieves with stolen goods.

You want to apply a fee to a product in case it is stolen and subsequently misused.

Not only does this presuppose that the product will be stolen, it punishes everyone except the person who broke the law.

Once again, gun control is a scheme to punish the law-abiding for the actions of criminals.

I'm not going to allow the actions of criminals to be used as an excuse to infringe my rights, either outright nor through taxation.

[Hoyt]

31. Again, I'm blaming the folks who keep buying . . and worse, promoting . . the dang things.

Is that clear, without any minced words.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

35. More anti rights tripe...

starting to sound a lot like Jpak

[Atypical Liberal]

38. Instead of the people COMMITTING CRIMES with the dang things.

Again, I'm blaming the folks who keep buying . . and worse, promoting . . the dang things. Is that clear, without any minced words.

Right. So, once again, the gun control solution is to punish everyone for the actions of the criminals.

Fuck that in the ear.

[Katya Mullethov]

59. Brigands dont normally do what they're told

Well , nor do I , but not to that great extent .

[oneshooter]

90. If they are building an arsenal then they would need a Federal license to do so.

However a armory needs no such license.

You don't even know what the hell you are talking about.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[lawodevolution]

94. "No, I'm blaming those building an arsenal and promoting gun proliferation (especially in public)"

This is why I take people to the range who have never shot before, teach them gun safety and show them how fun shooting is. Then many of them later on get their own guns. So what law would you pass to stop me from doing this? Because if you can't stop me and many others from doing this, those with your view will become a tiny minority and will likely be grouped with the likes of the KKK and neo-Nazis.

The most effective way to ensure gun rights in the future is to study the tactic the anti gun groups are trying to use to slowly win the debate, which is to erode gun ownership, and use it against them, which would be to get others involved in the shooting sports. If you can't stop this, you should give up, because guns will be like cars, you can't ban cars because a lot of people own cars.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. Define a bunch in terms with numbers in them

Your anti rights screeds are getting more comical on a daily basis.

[PavePusher]

52. "A bunch."

That'll go a long way in a court....

[safeinOhio]

12. $14.50 for a pack of cigarettes too.

Same thing.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/these_packs_cost_LGzOpJq8Ght1i9Q2yAZBXM

[Atypical Liberal]

17. How is that fair?

Why is it that you want to charge law-abiding citizens fees for expenses caused by criminals? How are the law-abiding citizens "inflicting extra costs on the system"?

Sounds to me like you should be advocating that the people who commit the crimes get billed for the cost associated with prosecuting them.

[inademv]

20. Criminals are charged after the fact

the costs shifted onto the firearm purchaser should be associated with the cost of apprehending and prosecuting the criminal who is then can be charged with a monetary fee to cover the costs incurred by the legal process. Start-up capital to keep the legal system just slightly less in the red for enforcing laws that can only be broken when firearms are involved.

[petronius]

41. So you want to charge people up front in case they become victims of crime, and

then charge convicts on the back end? I find those to be pretty unpalatable positions in general (setting aside guns, even). Sounds like you're straying into the sort of logic that is used to justify private prisons, exploitative prison industries, and charging prisoners room-and-board.

Beyond that, why not apply your logic to everything else? Jewelry couldn't be stolen without people buying jewels, DUIs couldn't happen without alohol, etc...

No, no matter how you dress it up, it's clear that these fees are motivated by the desire to suppress the exercise of a right.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. Unreasonable financial barriers to the excise of rights have been stuck down in the past

Given the racist and classist roots and effects of the repressive gun control laws in places like NYC, it is certainly a fair thing for legal review.

[inademv]

74. 300$ is unreasonable?

[rrneck]

79. It is if you are afraid for your life ane you don't have 300 bucks. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

91. Yes

Gun laws are both racist and classist. One symptom of the latter is forcing the cost higher than some can pay

[pipoman]

39. Really? Then why is enforcement so lax?

Even in NY actual enforcement is lax, trips to AZ in a feeble attempt to make a vague point OTOH...

[PavePusher]

51. Are those fees actually going to that purpose?

Cite, please?

[PavePusher]

50. "The right to own guns is not affected by the costs associated with acquiring them in a legal sense"

Wow, you just made my eyes cross trying to un-contort that one.

Only lawyers and Mrs. Grundy's can think like this. And that is a big part of the problems with our legal system.

[inademv]

71. That people who understand the venacular write the rules?

or that you don't understand then?

[PavePusher]

77. That you think an imposed economic impediment does not affect the access to a Right.

Seriously, I can't make this stuff up if I wanted to.

[lawodevolution]

56. artificially increasing the cost of owning a gun is ABSOLUTELY A FORM OF OPPRESSION

they tried to use it to stop people from voting and practicing other rights.

and I am focusing my pro gun activity in taking down artificial barriers to gun ownership such as fees, licenses, registration and other costs increases brought on by the government.

[GreenStormCloud]

85. "Infringement on rights was a good enough reason for the poll tax to be unconstitutional. N/T

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

16. I like that... how about a "Poll Tax" to cut down on Election Fraud?

[Hoyt]

40. Give us a break. "Poll tax" is totally different. Besides, Poll taxes were levied by gun toters.

This ploy of pro-gunners to portray themselves as victims of discrimination is ludicrous. When you are beaten, denied access to facilities or universities, told you can't apply for a job, etc., get back with us. I'll even support you.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

44. Charging significant fees for acts excercising an enumerated civil right...

yeah, totally different than Poll Taxes! :rofl:

With that kind of mental aptitude, I hope you don't forget to breath!

[Hoyt]

45. You have the problem if u think "guns in public" is equivalent to civil rights based upon ethnicity.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

54. Owning and Bearing arms is a regognized and enumerated Civil Right. Period.

Get used to it.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[ProgressiveProfessor]

89. Why is it not an enumerated right?

[PavePusher]

55. "...keep and bear..."

It's in that darn Constitutional-thing-gummy.

That, aparently, makes it a Civil Right.

At least in the eyes of anyone who paid attention in class....

[Hoyt]

68. "Bear" with restrictions. Guns in public is still not equivalent to the real civil rights issues.

[PavePusher]

76. Bearing arms is a Real Civil Right.

It is core to the Right to Self-defense. Also a Real Civil Right.

Again, may I see a rank-order list of Civil Rights, please?

[lawodevolution]

57. based on the constitution. "keep and bare arms"

[Hoyt]

69. With restrictions and then there is that "A well regulated militia" phrase.

And, the needs of society get involved too. This is not the 1700s. Well, except some folks want it to be with tactical weapons.

[rrneck]

80. How does one

go about forming a militia. This is the third time I have asked you this question.

[Hoyt]

81. You really don't get it. There are no real militias nowadays other than AFs - so turn in your guns.

Or, I guess you could join some of the TBag groups that consider themselves a militia because they have a compound, yellow and confederate flags flying, etc.

[rrneck]

82. That doesn't answer the question.

Try again.

[GreenStormCloud]

86. Still beating that dead horse? N/T

[lawodevolution]

92. "well regulated militia" equals all able bodied men (and perhaps women)

[Unrepentant Fenian]

2. Huh?

[ingac70]

3. Wages are a helluva lot better in NY than TX, too. n/t

[jpak]

13. I paid excise tax and on my truck - it that liberal oppression too?

:rofl:

[Remmah2]

37. Only on civil rights. nt

nt

[lawodevolution]

58. does your mom know you're on an adult discussion forum?

[jpak]

14. On second thought - they shuld raise Texas fees to NYC levels

yup

New

York

City!

:evilgrin:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

27. So you want to spread the repressive classist and racist laws of NYC? How progressive of you

:sarcasm:

[Hoyt]

32. Proliferation of guns is not "progressive." In fact, it is regressive. You guys crack me up.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

36. You have that backwards...private ownership of firearms is a progressive value

[Hoyt]

42. Progressive things are to make society better. More guns ain't doing that.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

43. Progressive is about empowerment, and empowerment does make society better for the workers

Private firearms are indeed empowerment which is why the gun laws are both classist and racist. They are designed to minimize the empowerment of the poor and minorities in our society. White folks with money has no problem getting weapons, even in NYC.

[Hoyt]

46. Guns = Empowerment. LMAO

Rather than making it easy for everyone to parade around with a gun, let's make it all but impossible for most.

300 million plus see no reason to pack in this country. Yet, you are for empowerment by gun proliferation. Sounds like some guy living in Idaho with a yellow flag flying over his compound.

[Atypical Liberal]

72. What your policy would mean.

Rather than making it easy for everyone to parade around with a gun, let's make it all but impossible for most.

If your worldview came to pass, it would mean that every time there was a violent assault in this country every time the weak would be at the mercy of the strong. The elderly, the disabled, the small, or even just the outnumbered. All would be victims of their attackers with virtually no possibility to resist.

This is the worldview you espouse.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

87. When you have had as many friends bashed and attacked as I have, maybe you would see things better

I teach firearms mostly to GLBT and women. Like many liberals and progressives they turned to firearms only after bad experiences, some of which qualify as tragic. That you and others with a high profile belittle that kind of thing shows how little you know about the real world and that that you care even less. You are quick with the snarky comments, but what have you done to make the world, the country, the city or even the neighborhood safer for people who are there?

I too would like to see a world where violence is very rare though I doubt I will live to see it. Until then the best contribution I can make is make sure that the vulnerable have the protection they need and the training to use it effectively. Last I checked, they are the good guys and clearly need our help.

What the hell have you ever done besides snarky posts here and elsewhere?

[lawodevolution]

62. exactly, a lot of the super rich today (who would like to pay their employees almost nothing) also

support gun bans for some reason. If you plan to or would like to screw someone over, their guns will be a concern for you.

[rrneck]

47. PROGRESSive

Progressivism is a politica attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform through governmental action Progressivism is often viewed in opposition to conservative or reactionary deologies.

The spread of CCW has been a very progressive movement. Taxing something out of existence because you don't like it affects the poor first and most. That's why such taxes are considered. REgressive.

[Hoyt]

48. The last thing I associate with "progressive" is more guns strapped to folks' legs in public.

[rrneck]

49. Yeah. We know.

That's why your posts are so funny.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

83. lol

[lawodevolution]

63. so when gays in california go from carrying a whistle and still being attacked to open carrying

a pistol and not being attacked, that's not progress? from being attacked sometimes to not at all?

[Hoyt]

65. That is definitely good. Luckily, most folks find better ways to protection than carrying guns.

[Atypical Liberal]

73. Like what?

That is definitely good. Luckily, most folks find better ways to protection than carrying guns.

What tool is better than the firearm for personal protection? If the firearm is so ineffective, why do police and soldiers carry them?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

84. The ironic part is that if guns didn't work so well... he wouldn't want to ban 'em.

As a tool, regardless of the user's intent, few things work better than a firearm at stopping targeted people.
Police carry them, Military carries them, criminals can carry them, and citizens can carry them...
Why? Because they work.

In terms of performance alone, not many items offer personal protection better than firearms. His own prejudice against firearms is admission that they work marvelously. That he also states most folks find better ways to protection than carrying guns is merely his trademark hypocrisy.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

88. Few carry openly in public, except as a statement

If CA, NY, IL and other repressive states would go to shall issue, most open carry would disappear.



History quiz for you...why did the state of CA ban loaded public carry?

[lawodevolution]

61. really? so as crime rates decrease, you manage to make the claim that

the increase in guns is a bad thing. links please, show us how increased gun ownership has hurt us.

[Hoyt]

66. Crime decreases from many variables. Simplistic to think it's due to more guns.

[lawodevolution]

93. Fail. You failed to show us how being more like Gun free Nigeria is going to be better

[gejohnston]

64. so how many progressives

are on the staff of anti gun groups? Their funders? Still mostly rich conservatives and Republicans.

[Hoyt]

78. Oh come on -- Brady was a Reagan Repub. Right wingers control the much larger NRA.

Today, TBagers -- and worse -- strap guns on to intimidate.

I will admit, I was not aware until stopping here that a few Democrats were obsessed with wearing guns and parading around with them in public.

[beevul]

96. Paul helmke, Mark Helmke, sara brady, jim brady...

Paul helmke, Mark Helmke, sara brady, jim brady...

The brady bunch:

REPUBLICAN founded - jim and sara, REPUBLICAN led - 3 term REPUBLICAN mayor paul helmke.


And his little brother mark is lugars campaign manager/spokesman.


And then theres bloomers who may as well be a republican, and McCarthy too.


Nothing to see here at all. :eyes:


I guess if the denial helps you sleep better at night...

[Atypical Liberal]

70. less guns means more weak at the mercy of the strong.

Progressive things are to make society better. More guns ain't doing that.

I have always viewed being "progressive" as protecting the weak from the strong. Progressives stand up for the rights of minorities even in the face of majority opposition, as they have done during the Civil Rights Movement and the Gay Rights Movement. Progressives stand up to powerful corporate influence, as when they support workers who are trying to make a fair living without being exploited by corporations. We stand up for protecting our defenseless environment against the predations of industry and over-use by all.

Being progressive almost always boils down to protecting the weak from the abuses of the strong.

If you take firearms away from common citizens, either through banning them or taxing them out of their reach, then every violent assault that the common citizen faces will put the weak at the mercy of the strong. Every single violent confrontation will leave the victim with three choices: They can run away if they are fast enough, they can submit if they are strong enough to survive it, or they can try and fight their aggressor in a contest of physical strength if they are strong enough.

In all three cases, the weak will be at the mercy of the strong. And the strong will be able to assault the weak with impunity.

This is the antithesis of the progressive ideal as I understand it.

[lawodevolution]

60. there is nothing wrong with "proliferation" or increase in gun ownership rates in the USA

crime rates have been decreasing as people own more guns.

[beevul]

97. Remember who you are talking to.

Remember what he said in another post:

"more guns that we have to deal with down the road"


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x400250#400456


There is no question, as to exactly what he means by that - not "more shootings" or "more deaths" - "more guns".


They can't help but let it slip, from time to time.

[inademv]

75. Which extra taxes are you talking about specificially?

[petronius]

95. He's talking about the application and fingerprint fees to apply for a rifle/shotgun

permit in New York City. For a handgun permit in NYC, the non-refundable application fee is $340...