|
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:
CA: $19 Gun-Sale Fee Is Constitutional
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A $19 fee on every gun sale in California to fund a firearm enforcement program run by the state Department of Justice is constitutional, a federal judge ruled.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence O'Neill ruled Monday that the fee falls outside of the scope of the Second Amendment.
Anyone who buys a gun from a federally licensed firearm vendor in California must pay the Dealer's Record of Sale (DROS) fee before they can receive the firearm. |
Comment by:
shootergdv
(3/5/2015)
|
How is this any different than imposing a poll tax to fund voting ? |
Comment by:
teebonicus
(3/5/2015)
|
How can it "fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment" if it materially burdens the right to acquire firearms? |
|
|
QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|