I guess a big question I would have for the Brady folks, is are they really willing to accept the implications of the Second Amendment being a fundamental individual right? For instance, is Chicago’s ban on gun shops constitutional? If so, why? It seems absurd you would have a right to possess something, but not buy it. There would also be an implied right to manufacture and trade in firearms, as incidental and necessary for keeping and bearing. Would it be correct to allow books to be owned and read in the city, but not sold?
Is their ban on firing ranges constitutional? Wouldn’t the right to keep and bear arms necessarily have to extend to the right to practice and drill with arms? Could Chicago ban adult literacy education centers within the city’s borders? Or ban teaching of English Literature Appreciation? Ban spelling bees? Outlaw teaching of foreign languages?
Is the 100 dollar fee they are charging for licenses just fine too? What if they charged a 100 dollar fee to be paid before having an abortion? What if they charged 100 dollars for a marriage license? Or charged 100 dollars for a demonstration permit? The Courts have generally frowned on license fees in exercise of fundamental rights that are punitive in nature, rather than to cover filing and processing costs.
“Oh, but the Second Amendment is different.” Well, in some important ways, yes. We generally accept that the Second Amendment right can’t be an identical mirror of the First, or exactly like other rights. But it would almost seem the gun control groups want to deny that an examination of how we treat other rights is facially illegitimate. This strikes me as absurd, but I suspect they push that idea because they don’t like the implications of “fundamental right.”
Is the 100 dollar fee they are charging for licenses just fine too?
Here in Texas, there is a big scuffle over voter photo identification. Those opposed to requiring it say that the cost of getting and maintaining identification is a barrier to voting — a barrier to exercising their rights.
A Driver’s License in the state of Texas costs $26 for 4 years. A State Photo Identification card is $15 for4 years.
How in the world can $100 every 3 years not be a barrier to exercising rights if $15 every 4 is?
They’ll answer the same way they always do in that the 2nd is different because it affects public safety. It is the only right that grants citizens the power to harm others. Unlike, in their view, the 1st, 4th, 5th and so on. Thus as a fundamental right it must be held to a different (read lesser) standard than others because of its potential harm to innocents, children, elderly, people in power, etc.
It’s complete garbage but that is their perception. Thus the barriers are “reasonable” to offset the damage an “activist court” is choosing to engage in in violation, in their view, of the clear public safety and will of the people in localities to decide for themselves.
Same tired argument, different frame.
An Illinois driver’s license costs $10 but a City of Chicago vehicle sticker is $75 a year, so I guess costs are relative.
My marriage license cost $161. Then again, it was in California.
The first amendment protects the right to seek redress from the government. Charging a high filing fee to run for political office seems like a clear first amendment violation. The MSM reports the democratic candidate for the SC senate seat paid $10k.