Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

In NYC Second Amendment Rights Sell For $340

March 29, 2012 by  

In NYC Second Amendment Rights Sell For $340
PHOTOS.COM
A Federal judge ruled that hefty fees do not hamper Second Amendment rights.

New York City residents who challenged a policy that requires handgun owners in the city to pay a $340 residential licensing fee as unConstitutional were shot down by a Federal judge on Monday.

Federal Judge John Koeltl ruled that the lawsuit brought by citizens and gun rights advocates, including the New York Rifle & Pistol Association and the Second Amendment Foundation, was void because he believes there is no evidence that the hefty fee has stopped anyone from exercising his rights. The fee must be paid every three years, according to The Associated Press.

“The city defendants contend that the $340 fee is permissible under this standard because it is designed to defray, and does not exceed, the costs of administering New York’s handgun licensing scheme,” Koeltl wrote in his 38-page Opinion and Order. “However, the plaintiffs argue that, to be permissible, a fee must not only be designed to defray administrative costs but must also be a ‘nominal’ amount. According to the plaintiffs, the $340 fee is too high to be nominal.”

The judge cited several appellate court rulings that determined such a fee is considered nominal, according to Courthouse News Service.

“While it is possible to conceive of fees that are impermissible because they are so exorbitant as to deter the exercise of the protected activity … there is no showing that the $340 handgun licensing fee qualifies as such a fee,” Koeltl wrote. “The plaintiffs merely assert that the $340 fee is excessive, which is not sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the permissibility of the fee.”

The residential license affords holders the right to have a handgun in their homes; it is not a carry permit.

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “In NYC Second Amendment Rights Sell For $340”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • cawun cents

    Your rights have been for sale to the Federal Reserve for 100 years now.
    Are you going to start complaining now?
    Lot of good that’ll do……just go back to your comfort zone and everything will be okay,
    Right now there is a DEBATE on whether your right to healthcare can be mandated and you can be fined for not exercising that right,as Constitutional!
    A DEBATE!!!!!???????
    Folks……we are nearly at the point where our trainer throws in the towel.
    We have been pummeled by senselessness for many rounds and either we are going to pull a Rocky Balboa,or we might as well start calling each other comrade.
    Those are your options.Pick one because I grow weary of this fight.
    -CC.

    • TIME

      CC,

      You get it as well as a few others here who can not only read the writing on the wall but can see through the Illusions being sold by the Demi Gods we now serve.

      Saddly the facts are that 2% or 8% or even 10% of the American people can’t stop whats been started way back in the 1800′s.
      I know I rail on about the 1860 issue but the facts are we lost ground as the ink was being penned on the instrument of Peace signed in the late 1700′s.
      Anyone care to review the “Virginia Trading Company”
      What is it?
      Let alone who it is?
      Or what it means to you?

      People; for you that wish to stay Blind, Def and Dumb, with your heads stuffed in a pot of sand, yet think all is well. Man I got some really bad news for you.
      We are in a place thats called ” between a Rock and a Hard Place.” And no matter how many of you Vote for whom you think will save you from the hell thats coming be they a D or R etc…
      Guess what?
      Its not enough, again, your “VOTES” really don’t count nor mean anything as we have all let the Con Artist have their way for so long they now rule you, they don’t work for you ,
      {{ YOU work for them }}. We are nothing but a people farm that makes Money to support these special people and their needs.

      If you don’t VOTE the way they want, thats 100% ok with them as both partys are simple ONE. So they win all the time and YOU loose all the time. Thats why your Votes are worthless. Thats also why you Voice is worthless.
      Until you withdraw and stop feeding the Blood Sucking Monster it will just keep growing and taking.

      What will it take to wake you all up?
      You will loose everything you have no matter what you do, so is your FREEDOM worth more to you or is it that you like being a Slave / being in SERVITUDE to these Vampires?

      Your call people, we let the ” Original Constitution” go long before we were even born, The Bill of Rights was lost at that time too. Thus you are not party to either.

      To bring down the Blood Sucking Monster noted as the City State of the District of Columbia, also “the United States Inc” . You must withdraw from it.
      Refuse to pay any more TAX’S, Give them nothing thats how to remove the Vampires.

      Again your going to loose everything either way, as in you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

      Peace and Love

      PS: the only thing holding back the Vampires from total control over you now, is that they let you all think you still are party to the ” Bill of Rights.” But saddly even a blind man can see thats only an illusion.

      • http://google rose

        You are so right on.

      • Michael H.

        Sadly, I have stated the same thing several times in this forum, with no takers or even replies. I quit in 2005 after reading an article in Readers Digest detailing what the U.N. was doing with the funds gvien it in the form of dues(which are the highest of any member nation) along with outright grants and loans to supposed 3rd world nations. Nations which can afford to build/buy nuclear weapons, but can’t feed their own. This country needs to wake up and look around. I’m tired of being vilified by illiterate and ungrateful a$$who*es who think that just because our country has a higher standard of living than theirs we should help them out.

      • Vigilant

        “To bring down the Blood Sucking Monster noted as the City State of the District of Columbia, also “the United States Inc” . You must withdraw from it…”

        TIME once again brings out the discredited pseudohistory that the USA is a corporation. And refuses on every occasion to answer the very simple question, “Can you show me ONE word, sentence, or paragraph in the Organic Act of 1871 that incorporates the USA?”

        …or will we be treated once more to a non-answer?.

      • Joseph A. Stone

        Time,

        The last time I read a statement like yours was in the 80′s when I worked as an activist. You are right in stating the VOTE is DEAD, But praise GOD our Founding Fathers had the foresight too give the People more than one vote. If WE the People really want to stop this bullet train to Hell we had better start exercising the two other Votes we have. GRAND JURY and PETITE TRAIL. Remember, regardless of what laws the government (local,state or federal) get passed if the People refuse to convict the law is useless!!! I worked for years educating People what their rights were BEFORE they sat on a jury… The government hated me and I was expelled from the court house steps many times.. If we are going to take back our Country without getting physical we will have too rely on educated jury members free we from the bonds of government oppression.. WE had better wake up soon because the government is trying hard to restrict or take away this right as we speak!!! REMEMBER WE ARE THE RIGHTFUL MASTERS OF BOTH COURTS AND CONGRESS NOT TO OVERTHROW THE CONSTITUTION BUT THE MEN THAT WOULD PERVERT IT!!! WAKE UP AMERICA…

    • Robert Smith

      “The fee must be paid every three years, according to The Associated Press.”

      The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 is how the sale of cannabis is controlled.

      So, are those who are advocating eliminating an unfair tax on guns going to join with those who oppose the unfair tax on pot?

      Rob

      • independant thinker

        Nice try RS but there is no such act it was repealed in 1970.

      • Vicki

        Correct the Marijuana tax act was repealed but the possession of it is still illegal. As long as the government thinks it has the power to forbid us from buying a product we should not be overly surprised that they think they have the power to make us buy a product.

    • absolutely amazed

      At last a victory for supporting the Constitution – the Federal government had no right to tell a state what to do about fees and taxes. The fee should have been $340 minimum or 10 times the cost of the gun minimum, whichever is greater, so the cost of caring for the victims and families of those killed and maimed by gunshot wounds could be at least partially paid for. We should also be taxed to pay for the nonsensical wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where our soldiers come back maimed, mentally harmed, of in pine boxes for no good reason, and their families destroyed in the process. But no taxes imposed to pay for these adventures, and trillions down the plug hole, and thousands of needless dead and maimed and bankrupted.

      • Brad

        And a police officer is always 5 to 10 minutes away all the while a crook steals your personal property and money, he/she has a gun what are you going to do, scream like the little sheep you are.

      • CZ52

        Brad, He will more likely kneel on the floor p!$$ing and $h!tting his pants while he begs to be left alone.

      • Joe H

        absolutely,
        Please explain to me why I, as a very consientious gun owner that has NEVER shot anybody, except in war should have to pay for some punks crime?? Or some jerk that can’t keep his guns out of the hands of some kid? Your mindset is as inane as those that want to sue the gun manufacturers for crimes committed with guns! PURE IGNORANCE!

      • Vicki

        absolutely amazed says:

        At last a victory for supporting the Constitution – the Federal government had no right to tell a state what to do about fees and taxes. The fee should have been $340 minimum or 10 times the cost of the gun minimum, whichever is greater, so the cost of caring for the victims and families of those killed and maimed by gunshot wounds could be at least partially paid for.

        Since the people who do most of the shooting do not bother with paying fees your entire argument is in error. How about instead you fine the punks that do the shooting (when they are convicted) and leave the rest of us with our money and our guns.

        It is also worth noting that absolutely amazed is advocating only the rich should be allowed to defend themselves with the best tools for the job. This is odd since liberals are always telling us how evil the rich are.

      • http://www.ifonlyphotos.com Alex Frazier

        @ absolutely amazed:

        What in the world makes you think that this is a Constitutional victory? Of course the Federal government has the authority to tell States what fees they can (or can’t) charge when it comes to firearms. Please reread your Constitution.

        In the first place, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a right that “shall not be infringed.” Do you understand what “infringe” means? It means to encroach upon, to approach, to tamper with, etc. The government has no authority to even consider gun control in any way, shape, or form. To impose a licensing fee on a citizen for the privilege of exercising their creator-endowed right is an infringement on that right if I’ve ever seen it. It shouldn’t be about whether or not it is an affordable fee. The fact that there is a fee at all is an infringement.

        In the second place, no State has any authority over guns under the Constitution. The fourteenth amendment explicitly prohibits the States from making or enforcing any law that abridges the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States. With the Congress delegated no authority to infringe on the second amendment, and the States prohibited from abridging our privileges and immunities, the authority over firearms resides solely in the hands of the people.

        In the third place, if the State were to make and/or enforce a law abridging our right to keep and bear arms, it should be thrown out as soon as it hit the court room, since Article VI, ¶ 2 says that the “Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof [...] shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” (Please note that the Laws of the United States that are to be considered the supreme Law of the Land are those made in pursuance of the Constitution).

        In the fourth place, the judge may have ruled that, ““While it is possible to conceive of fees that are impermissible because they are so exorbitant as to deter the exercise of the protected activity … there is no showing that the $340 handgun licensing fee qualifies as such a fee,” it is not a fact based upon a controlled study. If the fee has prevented even one person from exercising their right to keep and bear arms, even if they remained silent on the issue, then the fee itself has been an outright infringement.

        So legally and Constitutionally, there’s nothing about this issue that is a victory. A State passed a law that they were Constitutionally prohibited from passing. People in that State have to pay for the privilege of a God-given right. Some individuals, due to poor finances, will be prohibited from keep and bearing arms. And the Federal Court upheld this infringement of the second amendment.

        Where’s the victory?

      • http://www.ifonlyphotos.com Alex Frazier

        @ absolutely amazed:

        Concerning the other half of your argument, what shall we tax to pay for the victims of drowning? Perhaps a bathing suit licensing fee?

        You’re aware, I hope, that, according to the CDC, more people die in drownings every year than from firearm homicides. In fact, the actual death tally shows that more people die in accidental falls every year than from firearm homicides.

        While I appreciate the pain and suffering of those who have lost loved ones in firearm tragedies, and sympathize with them, the actual statistic for gun violence is nowhere near what the media would have everyone believe. According to the propaganda on TV, one might be led to believe that a 6-year-old child is gunned down in the street every twenty seconds. It’s simply not true.

        It’s an unfortunate thing that people get shot. However, it is important to recognize that relative to the total deaths in any given year, firearm homicides account for less than 1% of 1%. It’s ridiculously low. And of those homicides, the police are responsible for many of them. The CDC doesn’t track who killed who, or why. They only track the cause of death. So for a given year, n people died unnaturally due to firearms. That means criminals killing victims, victims killing criminals, criminals killing cops, cops killing criminals, and sometimes cops killing victims or bystanders. When you look at the FBI data on that statistic, it sheds a new light on the epidemic of firearm homicides. The police are responsible for more deaths by firearms than criminals are.

        Tell me, for example, how Sean Bell and his two friends, who were unarmed, were shot fifty times by five officers, killing Mr. Bell the morning before his wedding and wounding his two friends? Fifty times! These officers, in essence, completely unloaded their weapons on these men.

        Or how about Kathryn Johnston, who was gunned down in her home by three officers. She fired one shot at them, not knowing who they were as they bashed down her door with a no-knock warrant. They returned fire to the tune of 39 rounds. She was hit five or six times and died. The officers’ gun behavior was so wreckless that they even shot each other. At least one of the officers was injured by friendly fire. (These officers then planted marijuana in her home to justify the raid).

        So let’s be real about firearms homicides. We don’t have an epidemic in this country. Most of the firearm deaths are actually brought about by the police. But regardless of who perpetrates the shooting, there are still fewer firearm homicides than there are deaths due to accidental falls. And that’s a fact.

  • http://50.104.220.185 NetRanger

    You people obviously never read the second amendment. Let me restate it for you.

    “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 unless the State of New York wishes to extract cash from your wallet in trade for your self defense and safety.”

    Oh, wait… That was the modernized, politicized version. Hey! Don’t gripe to me. I’m just seeing it the way the politicians see it.

    • Flashy

      Net…just out of curiousity…where in the 2nd does it state packin’ a gun for self-protection against some self perceived danger is a Right? Does it state the reason being self protection…or for a militia/ And pray tell, what is the purpose of a militia?

      Jeesh….get some testosterone instead of having to have some sort of symbol to ‘prove’ you have any.

      • http://google rose

        At what point would you say a person has a percieved right to defend their self. Just before they take their last breath?

      • Flashy

        One has the right to protect themselves when in danger. But there is no 2nd Amendment Right to pack a gun in public. Actually, there is no rational reason to pack a gun in public other than living a life of paranoia or needing a testosterone supplement (with exceptions related to income producing activities).

        And the 2nd is unrelated to self protection.

      • absolutely amazed

        Flashy – I’m sure danger for you might be seeing a black man or hispanic across the street looking your way, or someone who might nose you out for a parking space at Wal-Mart. I would think I was in harm’s way and threatened by you particularly if you lived in the same country as me.

      • Jonathan

        United States Code Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Subsection 311
        Militia: Composition and Classes
        (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
        (b) The classes of the militia are—
        (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
        (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

        United States Code Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Subsection 312
        Militia Duty: exemptions
        (a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:
        (1) The Vice President.
        (2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
        (3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.
        (4) Customhouse clerks.
        (5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.
        (6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.
        (7) Pilots on navigable waters.
        (8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.
        (b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.

        United States Code is Federal law.

        The militia, the posse, and the jury are rooted in the same tradition. Per English laws dating back as far as the Anglo-Saxons, every free man, regardless of station, was required to keep and bear arms (typically helmet, sword, buckler, warbow, and sufficient arrows in defense of their homes from both outlawry (posse) and foreign invasion (militia). Those same free men were also required to stand as peers for those who were on trial for either civil or criminal actions (jury). Only slaves and foreigners were not permitted to keep and bear arms. Those traditions were kept and carried down into our country. So are you a slave or are you free?

        Open Carry is allowed in my state. I open carry. I can also conceal carry, but I find it more comfortable to open carry. It is not a “testosterone” thing. It’s a “we live in a dangerous world and I’m responsible for my family’s safety” thing.

      • g steele

        That is in the castile document and that document is where you’ll find that information,

      • CZ52

        Flashy what is your definition of “bear” as used in the Second Amendment?

      • Flashy

        when used in the meaning of the 2nd, a militia has the right to have an armory and to use such when there is a need. Has nothing to do with an insecure braggart showing how tough he is when he’s armed.

      • CZ52

        “when used in the meaning of the 2nd, a militia has the right to have an armory…”

        That would be the meaning of to “keep” the arms. To “bear” arms means carry on your person.

        ” Packin’ armor where ever one wants to…”

        I would say that is absolutely wrong. The authors of the Second Amendment were intellingent enough to know that firearms were needed for self protection both in the home and outside the home as well necessary for hunting in addition to the needs of the militia.

        ” That is a privilege afforded by a concealed weapons permit which should be given only in limited cases..such as a need because of work related situations or with a showing of probable likelihood of personal danger (i.e. being stalked).”

        Wrong again Flashy. I know of many instances where the posession of a handgun stopped a crime from being committed outside the home. One such instance happened to me and my wife. We were visiting our son. His front door opened off a small alcove. While we were waiting for him to open the door a panhandler who had been hiding in the area showed up and blocked our exit. When he started to get agressive to the point we were afraid for our safety I reached for my handgun. When he saw my action he quickly retreated and dissappeared.

      • Joe H

        Hey Flushy,
        Just what do you not understand about the words keep and BEAR”??? Are you reading challenged? even the supremes have backed it up!!!

      • Vicki

        Flashy says:
        March 29, 2012 at 7:59 am

        One has the right to protect themselves when in danger. But there is no 2nd Amendment Right to pack a gun in public.

        Sure there is. Just read it. It is one of the shortest and is direct and to the point.

        “….., The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed.”

        Thus you see that the people (that would be us) have the right to keep and bear arms. Keeping means to have, bearing means to carry. There is NO listed restriction as to where. There is NO listed restriction as to requiring that you be in danger. Thus ANY public place is where we, the people, may exercise that right. We may also exercise that right in any private place that we have the owners permission to be. We may exercise the right on a peaceful street or in the middle of a mugging. Or both.

        There is no restriction on how we may bear the arms so concealed carry is also protected.
        There is no restriction on the type of arms so rifles, pistols AND knives are all protected.

        The language is pretty simple. Any person who is a native English speaker can understand it.

        The simplest examination of intent by reading the founders writings at the time support this reading of the amendment.
        http://www.guncite.com/

      • http://www.ifonlyphotos.com Alex Frazier

        Vicki, thanks for saving me the trouble of typing that stuff out.

        Flashy … do as Vicki suggested. Read the statements by the founders who wrote the second amendment. See how they felt it should be interpreted.

        As to your other question (@Flashy), the purpose of the militia is to maintain public order during crises, to fight back against invaders, and to keep the government from oppressing the people. That, too, is the interpretation supported by the men who wrote the second amendment.

        As others have pointed out, we have not merely the right to keep arms, but to bear them. It is the final check and balance to the government, which they knew from day one would eventually outgrow the boundaries they placed upon it and tyrannize the people. Every government does it.

      • Vicki

        Alex Frazier says:

        Vicki, thanks for saving me the trouble of typing that stuff out.

        You’re welcome. Not that flashy will bother to read and learn but it is not he for which I write this stuff. :) It is for all those who are hear to think and consider.

    • absolutely amazed

      I guess Zimmerman was a well regulated militia?!?!?!?

      • just common sense

        1st.We don’t know all of the evidence yet. I really don’t like it when everyone rushes to judgement without knowing all the information.

        2nd. Either way. If Zimmerman is found “innocent” he still used excessive force and that will also land him in prison.

        My brother has a concealed weapons permit. He used to transport a lot of cash. He and his wife also have taken gun safety classes, they practice at the shooting range several times a year, they keep the guns in a heavy duty locked safe at home…in short, they are responsible citizens. And every time these type of discussions happen, it seems the person involved was either not responsible or legally shouldn’t have had the gun.

        I believe the law abiding citizens of Mexico are not allowed to “bear arms”…would you want to be in their situation? All the bad guys have the guns and you and your family are sitting ducks.

      • Vicki

        just common sense says:

        2nd. Either way. If Zimmerman is found “innocent” he still used excessive force and that will also land him in prison.

        Didn’t you JUST say you didn’t like it when everyone rushes to judgement without knowing all the information? Untill you know all the information how can you possibly assert that he used excessive force?

      • Vicki

        absolutely amazed says:

        I guess Zimmerman was a well regulated militia?!?!?!?

        He hit his (presumed) target. He did not fire extra shots that we know of. He did not miss that we know of. We are told that he was a captain of the local neighborhood watch. He is between 17 and 45, is male and is a citizen so yes.

        http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

        Now all we have to do is be patient and find out if he was exercising his right (and duty) to defend himself and his community or if he committed murder.

  • Flashy

    $113.33 a year for licensing a hand gun. OK…how is that not nominal? Of course! they want it for free and for the public to pick up the tab so they can play with their toys.

    Without doubt, there will be posters huffing and puffing about their “Right’ to protect their homes by having a gun in the house. Which, of course, is not the protected Right of the 2nd Amendment. But the purpose for the Right protected by the Second cannot be severed from the argument that one ‘needs’ a gun to protect themselves from a criminal element.

    And packin’ in public ? That is a privilege afforded by a concealed weapons permit which should be given only in limited cases..such as a need because of work related situations or with a showing of probable likelihood of personal danger (i.e. being stalked). Packin’ armor where ever one wants to so as to fulfill a testosterone insufficency is not a protected Right for the purposes of the 2nd. to insist it is is a delusional fantasy fertilized by lobbyists and organizations who rely on monies donated by said people having those insufficencies.

    The sole purpose of the 2nd is to prevent the State from having the only armed force. It protects the citizenry from being controlled by a State which relies upon military means for power. i doubt very much that one can make a plausible case that the drafters of the Constitution had anything else in mind when the 2nd was included in the Bill of Rights.

    • http://www.mototcarsfinancial.com Brad

      Oh I see Flashy the 113 dollar fee is cool to protect the second amendment but it is unreasonable for Texas to charge for an photo ID in order to vote even though the state said they would give the ID away for free it made simpler and you liberal idiots found away to bitch about that, even to the point where your buddy Bob Beckel made a statement that you could have to drive 300 miles to get to the closest DPS office in rural TX. He is smoking dope man, they have DPS offices in every country if not in the county next door. The only rural area this could even be possible is maybe out in Big Bend country, but than again that is a huge state park, used mainly by illegals and drug runners. Who cares.

      Stand up for something American for once in your miserable life.

      • Flashy

        Brad…apples and oranges. And only a mind desperate for some argument would try to make the argument you just attempted.

        As for your last comment….perhaps you should stand for America instead of standing to tear it down.

      • joe1cr

        I belive New York City is also under the New York State Constitution.
        New York: Nothing specific, however Article XII, Section 1 of the Constitution covers both the “organized” and “unorganized” militia and reads:

        The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

        Article 2, Section 4 of the New York Civil Rights Law also reads almost identical to the Second Amendment:

        A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.

      • s c

        Brad, contrary to what any brain-addled utopian thinks, the NY 2nd Amendment travesty and a ‘nominal’ fee for a valid photo ID to be able to vote are closer than apples and oranges [utopians and real people?].
        It says something about us when groups of unstable sociopaths can destroy a nation with votes, but the idea of having 2nd Amendment rights are ‘too risky’ in the land of village idiots. Frankly, I wouldn’t trust a utopian to interpret the Constitution or a traffic ticket statute.
        That mentality relies on lemmings who turned in their rights to be called human when they neutered themselves so their collective self-identity wouldn’t offend anyone. A closet Nazi is a closet Nazi, and ‘r’ and his round-heeled bedmates are exactly that.

    • http://google rose

      Now how do suppose the citizen are to excercise their right to protect theirselves from the control of a state, if the means to protect theirselves from this control is taken away.

      • Flashy

        rose…which is what i stated. one cannot sever the two. But to say that this fee is more than nominal or in any way infringes on the 2nd is utterly ridiculous.

      • http://www.ifonlyphotos.com Alex Frazier

        The right is to be uninfringed. If they make you pay for the privilege of your God-given right, then it has been infringed. Why is it that people like you can’t understand that? You make arguments just for the sake of making them, and stand on your opinion regardless of the facts.

        Dude, get educated and shut the **** up until then.

    • Joe H

      Flushy,
      Here in Ohio I don’t have to pay that! All I have to do is go through the background check at purchase and I own it! I do have to obtain a permit to carry. There should not be a fee to keep a gun at home in your own residence! that should also pertain to transporting a gun to and from a licenced range, either! don’t like it? MOVE TO MEXICO!!

    • Vicki

      Flashy says:

      $113.33 a year for licensing a hand gun. OK…how is that not nominal? Of course! they want it for free and for the public to pick up the tab so they can play with their toys.

      Your logic is flawed. It is not that we want licensing for free it is that we want NO licensing. With no licensing there is no tab for the “public” to pickup.

      Without doubt, there will be posters huffing and puffing about their “Right’ to protect their homes by having a gun in the house. Which, of course, is not the protected Right of the 2nd Amendment.

      Sure it is. Read the amendment. There are NO restrictions on where the right can be exercized therefore it can be exercized on one’s own property and in ALL public places.

      But the purpose for the Right protected by the Second cannot be severed from the argument that one ‘needs’ a gun to protect themselves from a criminal element.

      I think perhaps you said that oddly. Cause what you said is what we have said. Since you can not know when the criminal element will strike you must always be able to exercise the right to carry a gun. You can choose not to if you wish. It is your right. Of course if the individual mandate in obamacare is found to be constitutional then you could be forced to buy and carry a gun. Boy wouldn’t that make liberals nervous.

      And packin’ in public ? That is a privilege afforded by a concealed weapons permit which should be given only in limited cases..

      Rechecking the 2nd. Nothing there about bearing arms being a privilege. And since bearing is all about public (and private) carry of arms of course the 2nd protects “packin” in public.

  • oldbill

    Are you safer in New York City, without a gun, than you are where you live with a gun? What is the fee to possess a shotgun (a better home defense weapon) in New York City? Do you have to live in New York City, if you don’t like their firearms policies? It is like joining a church. You morally obligate yourself to everything the church (or New York City) has codified in its laws and ordinances. Both the City and the Church depend on your ignorance of higher laws, so that you will join. The underlying idea is that you provide your wealth to support the Church (or New York City) in exchange for a seat at the Table (or personal/family security). No church can give you a seat at God’s Table, at any price. New York City cannot protect your family, when the Blue arrive in minutes, when seconds count.
    Don’t like a church, don’t join. Don’t like New York City, don’t live there. It is very unlikely that you will be able to change either. When I am a guest in New York City, I honor the law, and disarm myself, as I would in any other foreign country. I don’t go to New York City very often. It isn’t on my bucket list. I don’t “feel” safe in New York City, one of the highest crime cesspools on the surface of the planet. But, I don’t feel safe in Washington DC, Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Detroit, Boston, or Seattle either. What do all these cities have in common? They have defacto removed the right to bear arms. If I know this, and it is important to me to be secure and to protect my family, why would I go there, much less live there?

    • absolutely amazed

      You are expressing the reality of living in this rapidly deteriorating nation. With guns in every home and on every street, there is nowhere we can be considered safe, all the more so now that 30 or more states give people, more and more of whom are unbalanced and unhinged, the right to blow each other way for perceived threats. Be prepared for parking space competition leading to shootings, maimings, and murders. Road rage is at epidemic levels, and as our roads and highways, most of which are in disrepair and in need of improvement (improving them and fixing the bridges now perceived by the Regressives as a socialist/communist plot, along with rapid rail and Amtrack) are impacted with more and more traffic tie ups and delays, the gunners will solve the problem by blowing away all of the perceived threats to their getting home or to the local saloon in a timely fashion. Blade Runner, here we come! Please tell me where do you cross the line regarding a threat sufficient for you to shoot/murder the threat?

      • CZ52

        ” Be prepared for parking space competition leading to shootings, maimings, and murders.”

        That argument has been used since Florida first passed its “shall issue” CCW law and it has not happened yet. It was also used in my state when it passed its CCW law and it has not happened here either.

      • Joe H

        Nor in Ohio!!!

      • Vicki

        absolutely amazed. Your ENTIRE argument is what liberals have claimed for YEARS would happen if people were allowed to carry guns. Yet in all the states that never banned gun carry in public and all the states that have since allowed it and even allowed concealed carry NONE of those claims ever came true. So your theory has been debunked by multiple experiments. You need to find new talking points.

  • Sirian

    They surely won’t be hitting up the criminals for a “users fee” will they?? Those poor deprived low life fellows, we surely wouldn’t want to do something as degrading as that to any of them would we?? NYC’s general trend of rulings, ordinances, taxes seems to revolve around – “screw the citizen, protect the criminal!” Out of all of this, which of the two has more money to access and continually feed the politicians on their whims of supposed protective knowledge? Out of that lovely center of media/political idiocy what else should we honestly expect?

  • mikey

    I will not pay for my right to speak,I will not pay for my right to per sue happiness , I will not pay for my right to liberty ,and I will not pay for my right to bear arms if this makes me criminal then so be it the men and women that freed this nation were all branded criminals enemies of the crown and if the war had went the other way would have been made examples of.Maybe this is a battle I can’t win .I truley hope it never comes to a fight ,but if it does I prefer death to slavery!

  • jerry

    I hope this Judge never has to use a gun. There is no evidence that any fee would deter people. That is not the issue. It is an unfair TAX and attack against our liberty and freedom. Why not have the state tax people for buying lettuce or milk or home security alarm systems? Governments are very evil and seem to be protected by the guys in black robes.

    • Flashy

      Why is it unfair/ you think people who have a gun and have the paperwork done should have it paid for by everyone else but you?

      • http://Aol CommonSense4America

        Flashy,,,here is a news flash for you!! Gun ownership is a RIGHT. Backed up be the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution. As a RIGHT, I should not even have to ask permission to own or carry a weapon much less have to pay a fee/tax.

      • Opal the Gem

        on’t confuse Flushy with facts it will make his widdle head hurt.

      • kimbercarrier

        Flashey you should have to get a permit to exercise your !st Amendment right to post on here. And it should be10% of what you earn. I bet you won’t agree with that. But people like you don’t mind trashing, restricting, or twisting the meaning and intent of the @nd Amendment.

      • Joe H

        Kimbercarrier,
        Flushy should have to get a permit to BREATHE and SPEW!!!

      • Vicki

        Flashy says:

        Why is it unfair/ you think people who have a gun and have the paperwork done should have it paid for by everyone else but you?

        Isn’t it liberals who constantly tell us how we are being unfair to the poor? Then the liberals turn around and tell the poor that they must pay a large (for them) sum of money just to exercise a constitutionally protected right?

        I think there is a word for that. Hypocrisy.

      • Joe H

        Flushy,
        you are forgetting one little thing here. I pay taxes each and every year so I have already PAID for that service! It is contained in the item called BUDGET!!!!

      • kimbercarrier

        Vicki they can’t control the armed and thinking people so, they deny the poor so they can control them and mislead them into thinking the gubmint will protect them.

      • Vicki

        kimbercarrier says:

        Vicki they can’t control the armed and thinking people so, they deny the poor so they can control them and mislead them into thinking the gubmint will protect them.

        I’m pretty sure the problem is not “the poor”. I know quite a few rich people who are way to liberal and way to into gun prohibition. They are being mislead just fine in spite of the fact they are not “poor”.

  • Dens

    What a supprise! A federal judge denies the peoples rights? I wonder which political party appointed this particular POS. Our rights are being taken away one by one every day of every week by these politically appointed hypocrites in robes and we are powerless to do anything about it. I suggest we recruit Fidel Castro to show us how to rid ourselves of the problem. He may be on the opposite end of the political spectrum from us but he does have experience in getting rid of a nasty government and he seems to have the time.

    • Flashy

      What “rights” were denied?

      • Joe H

        The right to keep and bear arms not BEING ABRIDGED!! note the words that are capitalized!

      • Joe H

        Excuse my misstake, that should read NOT BE INFRINGED!

  • http://Aol CommonSense4America

    But Judge,,,what about the poor people. You know,,,the ones that don’t have enough money to go and get a free photo ID for voting? How can they afford to defend themselves. This is absolutly a racial device to keep poor people unarmed.

  • http://comcast.net Ron Paynter

    Is it a surprise to anybody that the most screwed up city,next to San Francisco, would apply such an exorbitant fee to keep a gun in your home,not to carry it.This judge is obviously for the city and screw the residents. How in the world would it cost over $300 for the paperwork to allow someone to keep a gun in their home for protection. Are inspectors going to come to your house and ensure you have the weapon properly secured? What a ripoff.This has all the earmarks of another Bloomberg anti citizen action. If I was a New York citizen,and never would I,I would have two words for these idiots,neither one very nice. I’d put my weapon in a secure mplace and tell these asses to jam their $340 where the sun doesn’t shine.

  • ranger hall

    We the people carried weapons WITHOUT govt permission Open or Consealed up to the early 1900s. WE the people being working folks wanted to get rid of the extra weight we rried on our hips,we started hiring POLICE to Protect our Lives and Property, well this did not stop crime,crime seems to have gotten worst, In the bigger cities crime was growing at a rapid Pace, THATS when the Politicians decided to start making Hard Laws on the Citizens that involved Guns, Did not stop crime, Crime still continued to get out of control. The only gun laws that should have been allowed to be put in use would have been to incress the penalty for using a gun in a crime.But considering the politicians and a very lot of our protectors was involved in crime it would be easy to make laws that would control the Peoples right to keep arms.
    Today the Laws are still based on the people being disarmed, Laws,Fees,cost of weapons and ammo. Soon most people will not be able to obtain or afford weapons to protect our lives and property. And one thing for sure the Police we pay are not going to protect us. The supreme court said the Police do not answer to the People only to the Powers to Be.
    In the USA the only citizen killed by legal class 3 weapons was by the Police or the Military, Not by reg americans.
    So anyone againest american citizens carrying guns open or consealed or charging them for the right is unamerican, All states need to give the rights back to all Honest Americans. With out any fees..folks thats my take on the subject Maybe america can stay free.

  • ranger hall

    Oh i forgot these people that work for our govt are so over worked they need more money to to do the jobs they are already paid to do.
    Is there anything in our govt that we get without paying a fee today, Makes you wonder. Sorry i did get my DD214 once with no fee, But it cost me 15.00 for a copy of my Birth record.

  • Mike

    …..the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    The only people I can imagine who would misconstrue those words, are people who simply do not want “the people” to be able to defend self from abusive government.

    Let me expand on that;
    shall not be infringed.
    shall not be infringed.
    shall not be infringed.

    Regulations and fees ARE infringements. I am certain the average fourth grade student can see through that.

    Whenever a government, local, state, or federal, doesn’t want the people to do something it merely adds fees, or taxes, or regulations that make it costly or difficult. Sometimes they even establish a committee or a board to examine the issue. That costs the taxpayers even more.

    Everything the government undertakes will cost far more then if a business does the same thing. Why? Because the gov will insist on having more managers and assistant managers and financial officers and secretaries, and, and, and…..
    Why? Because they don’t worry about the cost. The gov can always add another tax to the working class to make them pay for it. OR, the gov can just print more monopoly money that will accrue interest the next generation has to pay.

    Our government is out of control and it is time to do more then talk about it. Several countries have something called, “Vote of no confidence”. The UK, Canada, and Australia to name a few. Why not the US? Because the buggers are scared we’ll use it to boot them out. We have got to get control or we are all goners.

    Check out the GOOOH party. GOOOH stands for Get Out Of Our House. That is a movement to get every day common people in the “House of Representatives” who understand you can’t keep spending more then you bring in. The plan is to put Sally the waitress, Ned the shoe salesman, Joe the baker in the house of reps. They will vote no to wasteful spending and halt the stupidity. Enough people like that in the house and we can shut off the money spigot from which the elite have been sucking the US dry. Time is running short so we better act this election cycle or there may not be another one. If things don’t get better soon there may be a shooting war, if that happens, that is when the pecking commies will step in to take over this country. They are circling the wagons as we speak waiting for their chance.

    Will you be part of the solution, or part of the problem?
    Ten years from now will you look back and smile or hang your head and cry?

    • TIME

      Mike,

      Very good post, look into the – “LOST 13th Amendment,” I think you may find that the GOOOH was in effect at some point in time prior to the mess we now have noted as the 13th Amendment that just for the record was never radified. How could it have been when there was no such thing as the “United” – States of America in 1863.

      Peace and Love

  • sybucket

    To both Flashy and Amazing….It may come as a shock to you both but there are states that DO NOT require a “Fee” of any kind to own a gun, of any kind. I live in New Hampshire- the “Live Free or Die” state. I carry a gun almost every day due to my job. I am not a police officer. I carry it openly. Not once in 10 years as anyone ever commented on it.
    As to your collective insistance that the 2nd Amendment does not give one a Right to carry or own a gun for self-defense….it was that exact Question that the Supreme Court affirmed in the Heller decision, that a handgun is the most commen tool for self defense. You hava RIGHT to own a handgun for self defense.
    These assine statements that “people will be shooting each other over parking spaces” are about as ignorant as you can get. These same arguments have been brought up repeatedly in almost every state that has passed “Shall Issue” laws for CCP and there has yet to be one incident of that type in all 40 something states that such laws exist. In addition you both might be suprised to lean that Vermont has NO gun laws at all! No permits required to own or carry. No “fees” exist in Vermont, NH or Maine to own a gun. Cost of a CCP in NH is ….$10.00 Good for 4 years. This $340.00 fee in NY is a continuation of Bloombergs war on the 2nd Amendment and I would guess if appealed, it will be eventueally struck down, as it dam well should be. .

    • Flashy

      “You hava RIGHT to own a handgun for self defense” … as Heller stated…in your home for traditional ‘self defense’ purposes. Nothing in Heller exempts registration nor restricting outside the home. .

      Note Heller confirmed what I was stating as for the purpose the 2nd Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights.

      And note there was nothing in Heller precluding administrative fees associated with registering the firearm.

      As for your job and carrying a weapon because of necessity, i believe I stated that would be an exception under any restriction on carrying a gun in public, a restirction which is permissable (as Heller also noted in dicta)

      • Thor

        I feel compelled to point to the fact that it was the ‘second’ ‘thing’ added to the Constitution. It is also significant to note the US Constitution was adopted September 17, 1787 and the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, was added August 21, 1789—less than two years later by most of the folks from the first Congress. Its principles are applied in courts of law by judicial review. It is also crucial to this discussion to note that the Supreme Court, in all of the last 236 has not ruled on so much as one 2nd Amendment case directly. It has in fact avoided the issue altogether for one of two reasons—depending on whether the court is dominated by progressives or conservatives: 1) the liberal view is that the status quo gives them leave to interpret the amendment any way that seems fitting at the time; ruling on it would cause a showdown that would induce the legislative necessity to either enforce the amendment, rendering all laws infringing on the right to bear arms un-Constitutional; and 2) conservative justices have felt that to rule on the amendment would force Congress to repeal the amendment, thus producing the same effect (or worse) as the 22,000 plus laws extant.

      • Vicki

        Thor writes:

        2) conservative justices have felt that to rule on the amendment would force Congress to repeal the amendment, thus producing the same effect (or worse) as the 22,000 plus laws extant.

        The 2nd amendment could not be repealed by Congress. The best they could hope for is to start the process of amending the Constitution. However they would then need to get 3/4ths of the states (or almost and fake the ratification as in the 16th) to ratify the amendment.

        Having done ALL that work they STILL would not have eliminated our right to keep and bear arms as that right comes from our Creator and NOT from the Constitution.

  • JimH

    Flashy, Tell me the number of conceiled carry permit holders that have commited a felony.
    How many felonies were commited by a concieled crry permit holder.(yes it is 2 different stats)
    Inhibiting law abiding people doesn’t stop crime. They aren’t the problem. Criminals won’t pay the fee.

  • JimH

    How does someone who doesn’t understand the concept of “Shall NOT be infringed” become a federal judge?
    Why should anyone have to pay a fee to enjoy a freedom that is their Constitutional right?
    It isn’t complicated.

    • Joe H

      Well, JimH, first you have judges like Ginsberg that openly stated that the constitution of the United States is outdated and old!! Now how is a person that believes this supposed to uphold the laws of this country??

  • oh oh

    The Founders assumed the personal right to keep and bear arms and couldn’t believe that the extreme views of some today to limit that inalienable right could reasonably be questioned. This is just the tip of an extensive historical iceberg underlying the Supreme Court’s recent reaffirmation of the personal inalienable right to keep and bear firearms.

    http://www.guncite.com/journals/dowdesp.html

    Excerpts:

    “The Framers took it for granted that the (p.28) Second Amendment encompassed the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense. Thus, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has recently opined that “[t]he Second Amendment embodies the right to defend oneself and one’s home against physical attack.”

    “The Second Amendment in its final form guaranteed that “[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.” Legislative history demonstrates that the Framers certainly recognized the importance of a militia to the security of a free state, but that they also intended to guarantee the individual right to keep and to bear arms, refusing to adopt proposals that omitted or limited an individual guarantee. Reflecting on the Second Amendment in its final form, historian Joyce Lee Malcolm concludes that:

    The Second Amendment was meant to accomplish two distinct goals, each perceived as crucial to the maintenance of liberty. First, it was meant to guarantee the individual’s right to have arms for self-defense …. The second and related objective concerned the militia, and it is the coupling of these two objectives that has caused the most confusion. The customary American militia necessitated an armed public …. The clause concerning the militia was not intended to limit ownership of arms to militia members, or [to] return control of the militia to the states, but rather to express the preference for a militia over a standing army. [45]“

    • oh oh

      The Founders assumed the personal right to keep and bear arms and couldn’t believe that the extreme views of some today to limit that inalienable right could reasonably be “argued”.

    • JimH

      Hi oh oh, The framers just overthew a tyranical government. Using armed force.
      They weren’t sure what would happen next and they wanted to insure that “We the People” would have the means if to overthrow another tyranical government, if that’s what took its place.(meet the new boss, same as the old boss)
      This ability is a concern for some of or politicians.( be concerned about the leader who is afraid of you owning a gun)
      It really isn’t about stopping crime.
      Gun control is about freedom loving people control.

    • Flashy

      Please point out where the 2nd refers to “personal defense” …

      • JimH

        Flashy, Try to think back to the time the Bill of Rights was written.
        A police force was practicaly non-existent. no communication system to speak of to call for help. Many people lived on the frontier, where there was no law to speak of.
        People needed to be self relient. The founders didn’t think they would have to specify the obvious.
        Even now when seconds count the police are minutes away.
        My gun is like a fire extiguisher, or a first aid kit. If I never need it I’ll be happy. If I do need it, it’s there.

      • Thor

        Oh, that’s an easy one, Flashman: it’s in the phrase “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” In case you don’t understand…an ‘infringement’ is any kind of impediment placed by the government to hinder, limit or discourage the right to keep and bear arms–including every single one of some 22,000 state and federal statutes.

        If you knew any history at all, you’d know that for the first 158 years of our history there was not a single gun law. Then came the War Between the States and Cruikshank. Then came the depressive fin de sicle, followed by two depressive decades, a World War and a genuine depression, topped off with prohibition, the gangsta era and the 1934 Gun Act. And every time this nation has faced a crisis, politicians and totalitarians have justified their existence and authority by passing more gun legislation. Such statutes are asinine, they do not solve the crime problem and they are of comfort only to those who feel their power threatened by rebellion.

        I hope you personally are the one who tries to deprive me of this right. Second thought…you aren’t the type to venture from the safety of your computer terminal. All else is just braggadocio and bear baiting to you. Have fun, eh?

      • Thor

        Oh, and Flashy…he doesn’t have to point to it. The Supreme Court just did.

      • Opal the Gem

        Flushy see CZ52′s reply to you at 11:23 he explanes it rather well.

      • Vicki

        Flashy says:

        Please point out where the 2nd refers to “personal defense” …

        Right there where it says “….. the right of the people (you are a people are you not?) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

        See. No restrictions. Nothing about the right being limited to personal defense. Nothing about the right being limited to a place or your belief that you are in danger or not.

        Tell you what. The 1st doesn’t refer to blogs like this one. How about we get a law passed that requires you to pay a fee and get a license before you are allowed to post here. Let’s make it hurt equally. 50% of your yearly gross income. License good for 5 years. That way the poor can better afford it too. Wouldn’t that be fun?

  • JimH

    Now Flashy, Tell me how hindering law abiding people is going to stop crime.

  • Thor

    “…the $340 fee is permissible under this standard because it is designed to defray, and does not exceed, the costs of administering New York’s handgun licensing scheme.”

    There are few better examples of un-Constitutional statutory boot-strapping in all of legal-dom! New York has an un-Constitutional licensing scheme that they want funded by an un-Constitutional statute. Aren’t we glad the fee taxation doesn’t exceed the cost of collecting the fee!

  • terry

    time, you are right but to give up is crazy. we have to keep plugging along & when fhit hits the san be locked & loaded & try to have some food & water on hand for 180 days or more.

  • Jim

    What do free speach rights cost? Or the cost of excercising your religious rights? Do we have to pay for the right to not have unreasonable searches and seizuers?

  • http://www.facebook.com/john.folts John Folts

    Shame on New York to have a crazy law like this.

  • http://yahoo bill

    i have only one thing to ask which is(why do the government favor the criminals rights over the law abiding)?

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.