|
|
|
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: California gun fee upheld over NRA objections
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
But the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said Thursday that the surcharge imposed a “minimal burden,” at most, on gun ownership rights, and was properly limited to programs aimed at reducing gun crimes.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court has approved bans on gun ownership by felons and the mentally ill, “we have recognized that public safety is advanced by keeping guns out of the hands of people who are most likely to misuse them for these reasons,” Chief Judge Sidney Thomas said in the 3-0 ruling, upholding a lower-court decision.
And while the state may not tax constitutionally protected activities to increase general revenue, Thomas said the California fee supports only programs related to gun sales and public safety. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(6/2/2017)
|
| Any tax on a right IS unconstitutional no matter what it is for! |
| Comment by:
dasing
(6/2/2017)
|
| The anti-american ninth court should be disbandeb! |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
