HQL = unconstitutional tax

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.

    sgt23preston

    USMC LLA. NRA Life Member
    May 19, 2011
    3,995
    Perry Hall
    Driving is not an enumerated Constitutional right. It is a privilege.

    Anyone who is ok with the HQL, isn't on our side, plain and simple.



    Like stated above, the US SC has ruled that the states can charge an amount to cover only the costs associated with the processing of the license but anything above that, it is a tax. This is where the outrageous, $20 per card cost, just to print the card, is going to come into play. SB281 said up to $50, they put it at $50 and have stated, on the record, they never did any real study on the actual cost

    Sgt Preston here...

    For the record, I'm not OK with the HQL or any part of it...

    I was OK with the 7 day wait when it worked...

    And it worked very well & within 7 days for many years...

    I'm almost 70 & have bought & sold a lot of guns over the years...

    I'm still an active shooter who gets out to the rifle range at least once a month...

    I don't get out to the indoor pistol range as much as I like because running my business (and life) gets in the way...

    Believe me, neither this Law or ObamaCare or Socail Security or Medicare are going away anytime soon...
     

    GUNSnROTORS

    nude member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 7, 2013
    3,620
    hic sunt dracones
    The 7 day wait never "worked". It was an inconvenience that we accepted and was the first step to the hoops we are expected to jump through now.

    Agree. Truth is, the 7-day wait became obsolete the minute NICS went online. And those who stated previously that this new legislation is most impactful on minorities and the poor were right on.

    sgt23preston (Semper Fi) is a realist, as am I. But let's not restrain others from speaking truths for the sake of realism. Abridgment of our 2nd Amendment rights "is" unconstitutional, despite revisionist court rulings.

    What's next ... MD-Approved Writing training/permits for online posts? MD-Approved Speech training/permits for peaceful protest?
     

    UNcommon Arms

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Feb 16, 2011
    332
    Howard County


    OK The Constitution states the we all have the right to bear arms...

    That means a baby 1 day old or a severely retarded person can get a gun..?

    I'm not sure that's what the Framer had in mind...

    BUT under the Constitution, the States have the right to regulate what goes on within their State...

    Merry-land has always regulated guns going back to shortly after the Civil War...

    The earliest regulations were written by Democrats & designed to keep guns out of the hands of newly freed black slaves...

    I'm on your side, there is nothing new here, it's just history...
    1 day old baby has not reached the age of majority 18yo {guns 21yo}. A severely "retarded" person also would not be able to acquire firearms under various laws.

    Merry land - being run by bigoted liberals - began implementing Jim Crow laws to prevent newly freed salves from bearing arms. agreed.
     

    Al Norris

    Spud Head
    Dec 1, 2010
    746
    Rupert, Idaho
    Understand that all forms of licensing and/or permitting are, in fact, a form of taxation.

    If any of you would actually bother to look at the history of driving, you would see that driving your own personal vehicle (motor vehicle or horse, with or without a buggy), you would find that driving is an ancillary right to the right to travel. Driving a personal vehicle on public roads, for personal reasons, is also a right.

    Regulating the commercial aspect however, is purely within the realm of a States police powers. There is no argument in that respect. Both the State and the Feds share a power to regulate commerce.

    The registration of personal vehicles and the licensing of private drivers is the result of the people buying into a scheme the various States originally proposed to maintain and build roads. The fact that licenses are recognized by the States, was done in the same manner that States recognize CCW licenses. Through individual State reciprocity agreements. The feds never had a thing to do with this.

    Having said that, the States can maintain a means of regulating travel, so that the public is safe. Rules of the road are one such regulatory power the States may use. Hence, Drivers Licensing is a permissible tax, to ensure that all private citizens are aware of and compliant with those rules.

    Likewise, vehicle registration, at its core, is merely the taxation of personal property. Again, well within the taxing authority of a State.

    This is the seminal aspect of how a fundamental right (the right to freely travel using ones personal means) has been subverted and converted to a mere privilege. That fact is evidenced by what you folks have already said; "It's a privilege, not a right."

    Regardless, when we look at 1A licensing schemes, we see a vastly different approach.

    A State may invoke a license or permit to hold a parade or other public assembly, because of the inherent policing, cleanup and diversion of normal traffic for the times, places and manner of the activity. A State may not license an individual or group merely for the act of engaging in a 1A protected activity.

    There have been several cases that are on this point. Murdoch being only one of these.

    How does this tie into the NYC case?

    If the right to possess a firearm (handguns, per Heller) in the home is a fundamental right, then the State (in this case, New York City) may not make the attainment of that right so burdensome that the ordinary citizen cannot afford to comply with the challenged regulations.

    The court accepted (both at the District and Appellate levels) the City's word, without a real look at the arguments against the regulations, that the scheme used by the City was in fact a reasonable regulation aimed at public safety.

    A close examination of the scheme reveals that it is the regulations themselves that have been tailored to produce such a large fee. The touted public safety reasoning has not yet been closely looked at. The reasoning’s have been merely accepted (assumed) by the courts.

    We would all hope that the SCOTUS takes this case (when it is presented) and strikes the onerous fees, if not the entirety of the regulations themselves. As it now stands, this represents a very dangerous precedent in the form of regulating the other rights.

    And please remember, that this particular scheme is to merely possess a firearm, in the home, for self defense. As such, it flies in the face of the particular result at issue in Heller. The so-called "public safety" issue is much removed from this particular issue. Too, should the Osterweil case be resolved in favor of Mr. Osterweil, it would go a long way to resolve fees charged by any government authority.

    This brings us to the licensing/permitting schemes of carry. Concealed and/or open in public spaces.

    Here, the issue of public safety is more prominent. Yet still, before one can make the claim that the taxation of this right is unconstitutional, one must first convince the court(s) that this right exists. Currently, the various courts are in disarray over this subject.

    At this point, a grant of cert in Woollard would be beneficial.

    Which is long hand for saying that many of the cases being brought, are interconnected at some level.
     

    GUNSnROTORS

    nude member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 7, 2013
    3,620
    hic sunt dracones
    Regulating the commercial aspect however, is purely within the realm of a States police powers. There is no argument in that respect. Both the State and the Feds share a power to regulate commerce.

    The registration of personal vehicles and the licensing of private drivers is the result of the people buying into a scheme the various States originally proposed to maintain and build roads. The fact that licenses are recognized by the States, was done in the same manner that States recognize CCW licenses. Through individual State reciprocity agreements. The feds never had a thing to do with this.


    Comparing rights enumerated in The Bill of Rights with "the implied right to drive a motor vehicle in the Commerce Clause" is an exercise in rhetoric ... but I'll bite:;)

    The Commerce Clause states that "only Congress" is allowed to regulate commerce between persons in different states. The 2nd amendment states that our right "shall not be infringed". Both restrictions would apply to the states.

    As for restricting rights for any reason, Article Six of the U.S. Constitution states: "This 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 not one word withstanding." ... "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."

    Court rulings: "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24

    "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

    "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.

    There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946
     

    sgt23preston

    USMC LLA. NRA Life Member
    May 19, 2011
    3,995
    Perry Hall
    Sgt Preston here...

    OK I'm going to go out on a limb & tell you what the new HQL law is really about...

    It's about the Democrats trying to keep guns out of the hands of black males while being remote & politically correct...

    There have been a lot of straw purchases made in recent years by "baby mommas"...

    I have actually witnessed some, where the guy & girl come in together & he tells her what to order (for him)...

    She typically has no clue about the hardware in question...

    That's all the new HQL law is about...

    The Democrats will never admit it but it's all about trying to keep guns away from black males...
     

    smokey

    2A TEACHER
    Jan 31, 2008
    31,412




    Sgt Preston here...

    For the record, I'm not OK with the HQL or any part of it...

    I was OK with the 7 day wait when it worked...

    And it worked very well & within 7 days for many years...

    I'm almost 70 & have bought & sold a lot of guns over the years...

    I'm still an active shooter who gets out to the rifle range at least once a month...

    I don't get out to the indoor pistol range as much as I like because running my business (and life) gets in the way...

    Believe me, neither this Law or ObamaCare or Socail Security or Medicare are going away anytime soon...

    Smokey here...

    The 7 day wait did nothing....

    It did not "work". The majority of guns that are used in crimes are not obtained legally, so there is no waiting period for them...

    If you're talking about mass shootings, they are often planned over a period of YEARS...a 7 day wait is no deterrence from them...

    Not to mention that after obtaining your first gun, you still have to wait for your second.

    If I'm so mad I can't control my desire to shoot someone, why would I buy a new gun to shoot the person instead of using one of the many I already have?

    Also, why wouldn't I just pickup a shotgun, gallon of gas + lighter(happy land fire), or just make some explosives at home?

    If it "works" so much, explain the violent crime rate of PA, with no waiting period, compared to md. It is nothing but an unconstitutional infringment on an inalienable right.


    ...And SB281 is not about race or color, it is about control...

    Control over everyone that would oppose a tyranny, as every liberal has a totalitarian tyrant inside...

    The law also is a "low hanging fruit"...

    It lets them claim they've done something about "gun violence" without them actually having to address the more complex causes that are difficult to solve...

    It is a platform which O'malley is going to make his national run...

    ...F maryland and the lawmakers that followed his marching orders in the process.
     

    sgt23preston

    USMC LLA. NRA Life Member
    May 19, 2011
    3,995
    Perry Hall
    Smokey here...

    The 7 day wait did nothing....

    It did not "work". The majority of guns that are used in crimes are not obtained legally, so there is no waiting period for them...

    Sgt Preston here again...

    When I said I was OK with the 7 day wait, I meant that 7 days did not inconvenience me badly & I was OK with the wait...

    After all I was buying a new toy & had to wait a week to take it home, it seemed reasonable at the time...

    I've bought lots of guns over the years & NEVER had to wait longer than 7 days for any of them...

    Obviously my last purchase was Nov 16th, 2012 before all this BS started...

    I'm not OK with any part of the new law but realize that it's not going away anytime soon...

    The Judges & State Lawyers from top to bottom are in Merry-Land State's vest pocket...

     

    KingGeorge

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    May 30, 2013
    523
    So is it really about ( black baba mamas) as one say or majority of crimes committed are not even legally purchased guns... I mean which one is it? Truth be told I don't know any black thugs who have there baby mama go buy a gun for them... These boys get there guns from the street, the black market! Guns come into the country, some gun stores have been robbed, home invasions putting guns on the streets aswell. I highly doubt it's a significant amount of (black baby mamas) buying guns for dudes when half of these (baby mamas) record is a mile long and would be denied a gun herself.
     

    KingGeorge

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    May 30, 2013
    523
    It's really sad that you'd try and blame the HQL on black woman. I've been in hoods most my life and been around these people my whole life and never have I heard of stuff going down that way. Everybody know who to go too when they needed dirty guns. and it damn sure wasn't no baby mama.
     

    KingGeorge

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    May 30, 2013
    523
    The HQL is nothing more than democrats trying to run over law abiding gun owners with as much control as possible. There view is well if pro2a people are going to buy guns then were going to make them pay for there 2a and make money off them.

    If black dudes can just make the mother of there child go buy a gun for them then why would a HQL stop them? It won't! Then you factor in that most black men ain't even with the (baby mama) or even around period would crush your theory aswell. Sorry but it just doesn't go down like that. I'm sure there are instances in all races where straw purchases happen but I doubt straw purchases is the reason omalley is trying to hammer pro2a folks. This is all about control
     

    Al Norris

    Spud Head
    Dec 1, 2010
    746
    Rupert, Idaho
    Comparing rights enumerated in The Bill of Rights with "the implied right to drive a motor vehicle in the Commerce Clause" is an exercise in rhetoric

    Perhaps, but then by this token, you have no privacy rights. That also is an unenumerated "right."

    Besides that, I never implied that driving for personal use had anything to do with the Commerce Clause. Straw-man argument.

    GUNSnROTORS said:
    The Commerce Clause states that "only Congress" is allowed to regulate commerce between persons in different states.

    Hogwash. Article I, section 8, clause 3 grants to the Congress the power; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes[.]

    There is a miles wide gap between what "commerce" meant at the founding and what it means today.

    As for your diatribe on Article VI, you forget Barron v. Baltimore, Dred Scott, the 14th amendment and how it was eviscerated by The Slaughterhouse Cases. Since the Court declined to take up Gura's challenge of reinvigorating the Privileges or Immunities clause of the 14th in the McDonald case, we are stuck with selective incorporation via the 14A "Substantial Due Process" clause.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,928
    Messages
    7,259,423
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom