NJ Gov wants to increase gun application fee 60 times the current amount
- Thread starter Decoy
- Start date
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!
Member Benefits:
Sounds like oppression of minorities to me. You know, kind of like that old pesky poll tax...
And, it probably will not be reported by any news source in NJ.
KevinK
Ultimate Member
Gun grabbing loser.
delaware_export
Ultimate Member
- Apr 10, 2018
- 3,225
Iirc the CNMI Which is under the 9th circus found 1k to be excessive. Maybe like 3-4 years ago.
I guess we are just down to negotiation over the price.
I guess it also related to what they try to lable a tax vs fee.
IMO, any money .gov mandates you pay for their approval should be considered a tax if they don’t approve without payment. Regardless of who actually receives the money. Them, whoever employees the fingerprinter, trainer, etc.
I guess we are just down to negotiation over the price.
I guess it also related to what they try to lable a tax vs fee.
IMO, any money .gov mandates you pay for their approval should be considered a tax if they don’t approve without payment. Regardless of who actually receives the money. Them, whoever employees the fingerprinter, trainer, etc.
Surprised he is affecting law enforcement too. If I were running a state, they would get them for free. Kind of like a free armed auxiliary police force.
They had a chance to slap down the around 350 dollar fee that NYC charges and they sat on their hands.
It seems all they need to do is make a permit department with employees getting lavish pay and benefits that'll justify the high fees and the courts will green light it.
Kwong v. Bloomberg challenged the NYC $340.00 fees. They lost at District Court, again in the 2nd Circuit, and were denied cert by SCOTUS. The 2nd CA opinion is binding in NJ, so going to be an uphill battle to fight the fees. I was incorrect on the 2CA issue; NJ is apparently in the 3CA, and will likely view the 2CA opinion with significant weight.
Last edited:
This is correct.
When the "fee" is commensurate with the actual cost of completing the task at hand, it's not seen as a "tax".
Fees? I hope SCOTUS will step in and address the ridiculous PERMITS.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This isn't binding in NJ, they are in the 3rd Circuit. But you can bet they'll agree and cite Kwong as persuasive authority.
Thank you for the correction - I thought they were in the same circuit as NY. I appreciate the information.
randomuser
Ultimate Member
I always see people typing about SCOTUS. I have also seen unconstitutional law after law be put onto the citizens. Where is SCOTUS? They would spend the next decade getting rid of the unconstitutional laws already on the book and that is only if they actually looked at all of them, not to mention all the new unconstitutional laws that have already passed.
What get me is this:
How can you tell me that I'm responsible for my own safety and then require HQL, carry permit, etc...
Warren v. District of Columbia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
You can't have it both ways and LE does not have spidey senses to react to a crime before it happens so people should be allowed to protect them self. Gasp, even outside of their own home.
I think a lot of people don't understand that SCOTUS can't "step in." There has to be a perfect storm of the right people having already pressed the right matters through a parade of lower courts under just the right circumstances while the demographic on the court and the competition from OTHER matters before the court all align perfectly. The court can't originate any action, and have far more things preventing them from having a hand in what bothers us than they do enabling them to solidly do so.
TheOriginalMexicanBob
Ultimate Member
It also has to be the right case to submit to SCOTUS for consideration. You take the wrong case...weak in supporting facts or with attorneys not up to the task and you lose big-time. Once you lose at SCOTUS it may take a long time before a better case comes to overturn precedent.
randomuser
Ultimate Member
Wouldn't Warren v. District of Columbia be a prime reason for getting rid of HQL and adding constitutional carry? It seems like you can't have their decision and yet limit the ability to defend.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren...ct_of_Columbia
TexDefender
Ultimate Member
- Feb 28, 2017
- 1,572
The approach I would use if this was going to court, would be what is the actual cost for the permit. Then a comparison needs to be made of the current vs the increase. Governments are not in the business to make a profit, they are there to govern with the people's consent. It the cost is dramatically high then there is no other reason for the increase than to "price" this right out of existence.
davsco
Ultimate Member
if everyone did what they SHOULD, the world WOULD be a much better place. alas, that ain't what's happening.
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
Convicted For Building Guns; Judge says, “Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom” (2 Viewers)- Started by Harrys
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
The Economic Impact of the Firearm and Ammunition Industry- Started by Target Sports USA
- Replies: 0