Skip to main content

View Diary: Stricter gun measures passed by Colorado House of Representatives face tougher go in its Senate (105 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Seems like a sensible start. (9+ / 0-)

    Why any civilian needs a magazine with greater than a 15-round capacity is beyond me.  

    I also don't see why gun owners shouldn't pay for their background checks.  I had to pay for mine when I applied for membership in the California bar.  And my law license isn't going to kill anyone.

    "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

    by FogCityJohn on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 08:29:09 AM PST

    •  It's because they haven't had to pay for the (6+ / 0-)

      work they put the agency through.  They've resisted paying for the checks just like they've resisted getting licenses (like they have to have to operate motor vehicles, go fishing or go hunting or go boating or having a dog, etc, etc).  Put the burden on those who don't have guns just because you want to save $5-15.  It is perfectly reasonable to pay for it since it's entirely optional as to whether you do it or not.  If it was mandated that you have a gun, then I'd support the state paying for it.  Since people don't have to have guns, I don't want my tax dollars supporting their efforts to have guns.

      •  Voting is optional too. That 10 dollar Voter ID (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose

        card should be required too then, right?  Since some don't vote and what's 10 dollars anyway????  Most people should be able to handle it.

        Hopefully, this won't become precedence, huh? Because I guarantee....it will take no time at all for them to use this as an example.

        •  Poll tax is decided law. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber

          “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

          by jeff in nyc on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 06:53:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bailey2001, FrankRose

            ...and think about why.

            Then apply same logic to a requirement to pay to exercise other rights.

            Perhaps a criminal plaintiff should have to pay, in advance, for his jury trial? Those are pretty expensive to the state. Fortunately, I'm a pretty nice guy, so I would support making a "pauper's" path available - the suspect waives the right to a jury trial and then only has to pay for the much faster bench trial (i.e., the prosecution can not demand a jury trial in such a case). I suppose if she's found "not guilty", a refund might be in order (although, a hung jury would, presumably, not qualify for a refund if the case is not retried).

            Anyway, reimbursing the registrar of voters for the cost of doing a check on your eligibility to vote isn't a "tax", it's a "fee". Roberts may need to dust off his PPACA opinion on this one, but he's proven to be pretty creative on such distinctions so I don't see that as much of a speed-bump.

            Similarly, the cost of validating that you're a registered voter and that your signature matches (through some electronic system) that on your voter registration card surely is only a "fee" and not a "tax".

            Seriously, the right enumerated in the Second Amendment is now (correctly IMHO, but MHO is irrelevant) as much a first class individual right as those in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments. I know it takes a while to adjust to the new reality.

            •  I disagree with your equivalence. (0+ / 0-)

              I believe there's more work done to run a background check for gun possession than for voting, but I will acknowledge I don't know since I've never tried to buy a gun.  Besides, Colorado would only be charging $5-12, which is pretty small even when compared to the photo ID laws that many states including Colorado want to impose for voting.  

              In addition, while fraudulently voting (for whatever reason) is a crime, it's incredibly unlikely that a fraudulent vote would have the same impact as a fraudulent purchase of a gun that is used for a crime or a suicide.  There aren't 30,000 deaths/year from voter fraud.

        •  Analogy Fail (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber

          Owning a gun is not a civic responsibility.  It is not required for participation in American democracy.  Voting is.

          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

          by FogCityJohn on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 10:30:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  They are both guaranteed rights of the people by (0+ / 0-)

            the Constitution.  The right to own a gun is even listed in the Bill of Rights.  Voting and gun ownership are completely equal as Constitutional rights.  There are limits, such as age and criminal status and where, when and how but other than that they are equal as a right and as they are of the Constitution.

            I assure you that if we start going state by state imposing "fees" on Constitutional rights of the people....it won't take them a matter of days to place this precedence on Voter IDs or any number of other rights.  Why would they not?  Who could argue the point anymore when we are making it okay to do so?

             If my right can have a 10 dollar price tag on it, then any voter can have the same 10 dollar "fee"...regardless if either one of us can afford it or not.  

            •  really? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Glen The Plumber, FogCityJohn

              This is the argument you think will win with?  

              Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world--and never will. Mark Twain

              by whoknu on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 06:21:38 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Lots of constitutional rights cost money. (0+ / 0-)

              You have a constitutional right to marry, yet the state can charge you a fee for getting a marriage license.  You have a constitutional right to travel, but you can be required to pay for the costs of your own travel, and the government is entitled to impose taxes on the price of things like airline tickets.  The First Amendment protects freedom of the press, but the government is entitled to tax things like the sale of newspapers and cable television.

              In short, the mere fact that you claim to have a right enumerated in the Constitution does not mean the government has no authority to regulate its exercise.  It may even require the payment of a fee.  (Witness FCC licenses.)  

              The analogy to voting rights simply doesn't work for the reasons I pointed out.  In addition, there are the obvious differences between guns and ballots.  The latter cannot be used to kill other human beings.

              "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

              by FogCityJohn on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 02:18:41 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site