Should government charge a $1000 fee for people to protest?

2016-04-19T06:53:09-04:00

Should all journalists register with the government before writing?

If the answer is no, why would it be ok to do the same with Guns? I'm not a gun owner and probably never be one but I'm a firm believer of the constitution.

Many states and local governments have or are imposing taxes on legal gun ownership.

http://www.mvariety.com/cnmi/cnmi-news/local/85286-new-gun-control-law-imposes-1-000-excise-tax-on-pistols

What are your thoughts?

New gun-control law imposes $1,000 excise tax on pistols

Marianas Variety - Saipan News & Views - Micronesia's Leading Newspaper Since 1972. Saipan's 1st Interactive News Website.

Response by PO2 Mark Saffell made Apr 19 at 2016 6:58 AM

2016-04-19T06:58:09-04:00

Interesting thought, But I think the government is in our pockets way too much as it is.

Response by SFC Pete Kain made Apr 19 at 2016 7:08 AM

2016-04-19T07:08:38-04:00

Fair is fair. Maybe if that came up the gun haters would back off and sober up.
I like the way you think Maj Michael Brewer

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 19 at 2016 7:20 AM

2016-04-19T07:20:16-04:00

Good question Sir. We same thing with showing ID, right? People say that requiring voters to show ID is an infringement of their constitutional right. So therefore, no one should have to show an ID to purchase a firearm either.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Apr 19 at 2016 7:25 AM

2016-04-19T07:25:28-04:00

"Poll Tax"

Although we already have excise taxes on firearms (it's about $40~ on many handguns) and MANY other items like tires, that doesn't make it correct.

It's the Government attempting to reduce the usage of a Protection through invest Power. There is no other way to look at it than Infringement. It's breaking the "big rules."

Nothing says the Government can't Tax. It's one of their Powers. Nothing says the Government can't Tax Arms (et al). It's when that Taxation becomes Infringement that we have a problem. There's a lot of gray area in there.

Like Voter ID laws. If you give everyone an ID for FREE, it is "generally" not considered Infringement. When you make them "jump through hoops" to get an ID (as in have multiple proofs of residency, and multiple proofs of identity to get an approved ID), then we step into Infringement territory.

The same happens with Arms. If we look ONLY at the Cost aspect, assuming that other regulatory aspects are met (like ID requirements), at what % does it become a "Financial Infringement?" Or is it a % at all, and a dollar figure instead?

Normally when we look at Background Checks, the Government puts verbiage into the Law that says "no more than $X will be charged for the completion of a Background Check to cover associated fees." This is to ensure that they are NOT Infringing, but instead "recouping cost of program" which is reasonable. Services do cost money after all. But we know that no Background Check costs $1000.00, therefore it is an Infringement.

cc Capt Mark Strobl Capt Richard I P.

Response by SCPO Jason McLaughlin made Apr 19 at 2016 10:05 AM

2016-04-19T10:05:58-04:00

My thoughts are that your reference article doesn't apply to your argument. The U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands does not fall under the U.S. Constitution.

The definition of "Commonwealth" according to current U.S. State Department policy (as codified in the department's Foreign Affairs Manual) reads: "The term 'Commonwealth' does not describe or provide for any specific political status or relationship. It has, for example, been applied to both states and territories. When used in connection with areas under U.S. sovereignty that are not states, the term broadly describes an area that is self-governing under a constitution of its adoption and whose right of self-government will not be unilaterally withdrawn by Congress.

U.S. insular areas are not afforded direct representation in the federal legislature, either in the Senate or in the House of Representatives.

They have the right to pass their own laws.

Bottom Line: Nice story to try and make your point, but doesn't pass the sniff test!

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 19 at 2016 10:06 AM

2016-04-19T10:06:36-04:00

Sir,
these two are not comparable. A journalist and their written works do not kill people. they may at times ruin a reputation or bring down a corrupt official but death is not the outcome. A gun has one purpose to kill someone or something. I have no problem with making legal gun owners register with the Federal and/or state governments to make sure that all proper paperwork and training is completed. that seems to be a good compromise between public safety and the 2nd amendment.

Response by CW4 Guy Butler made Apr 19 at 2016 10:55 AM

2016-04-19T10:55:13-04:00

A bit more information and background:
http://www.stripes.com/news/navy-veteran-takes-on-saipan-s-restriction-on-handguns-1.335594

Navy veteran takes on Saipan's restriction on handguns

A Navy veteran and his wife are challenging a ban on handguns in Saipan, arguing in federal court that the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands is bound by the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.

Response by Sgt Jay Jones made Apr 19 at 2016 11:50 AM

2016-04-19T11:50:28-04:00

They also impose fees aka taxes on drivers licenses
Hunting licenses
Fishing Licenses
Marriage Licenses
License Plates for your vehicles.
Pet Licenses
and a host of other license I cannot think of at this very moment.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 19 at 2016 12:31 PM

2016-04-19T12:31:41-04:00

It's been said a million times. The federal (and some state) government is getting more and more and more invasive with the lives of Americans, at the job and at home. While doing so, they illegally ignore or legally misinterpret existing laws and regulations. To whom is that one, still, small voice to complain? Who will listen? If Hillary is elected, the Second Amendment will be attack mercilessly. For starters.

Response by MSgt Michael Bischoff made Apr 19 at 2016 1:59 PM

2016-04-19T13:59:17-04:00

Think about it with the amount of guns in this country if they imposed a "fee" on newly purchased guns. This country would out of debt in a heartbeat!!

The constitutions Doesnt say you can't tax guns it says you have the right to bear arms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Doesn't mention free arms, just free state!

But it does say: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Caught the word FREE!!

Response by SSG Jeremy Kohlwes made Apr 19 at 2016 4:39 PM

2016-04-19T16:39:57-04:00

Where are they charging that much to own a gun? I would agree with you however the problem comes down to politics and the people. Guns are a very volatile topic right now. If you sued the state over this you could probably push it an win, but then the politicians will most likely find some other way to appease the anti-gun masses.

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Apr 19 at 2016 5:36 PM

2016-04-19T17:36:39-04:00

A financial hurdle to exercising a protected right is as unconstitutional as any other hurdle. If someone files a lawsuit, it will be struck down.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 19 at 2016 10:22 PM

2016-04-19T22:22:46-04:00

Sir, Major Michael Brewer the reason why liberals want to register guns is so that the GOVERNMENT can take them when the government starts to act like Nazi Germany and the Former USSR. and CHINA (Chairman Mao)