|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
CT: More Thoughts on Malloy’s Gun Permit Fee Plans
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Complaints about Gov. Dannel Malloy’s proposal to increase the permit fees on firearms are coming in from gun owners who claim the tax is unfair. But does anyone who is taxed think they are fairly taxed? A permit fee on guns is similar to a tax on cigarettes. Cigarette taxes have risen astronomically — and for a good reason. Cigarette smoking has been proven to be a killer and anything to force a reduction in smoking is looked upon favorably. Guns are also a killer — as anyone who reads about violence in Newtown and other areas understands. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(3/13/2017)
|
| We haven't been fairly taxed since the war between the states! |
| Comment by:
laker1
(3/13/2017)
|
| Cigarettes are not a civil right. Firearms are a civil right. Therefore standing in the way of the poor exercising a civil right is unconstitutional. You know, like a poll tax. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
