Failing to Understand Rights

And this from a Laywer. I’d never hire this guy:

Perhaps it is time that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement takes away the responsibility of overseeing concealed weapons from the Department of Agriculture? Just because having a gun in Florida is a constitutionally protected right does not mean it should be so cheap and so easy.

Shouldn’t exercising a right be, by the very concept of a right, “cheap” and “easy?” Does our HuffPo lawyer columnist believe that one can tax speech? What about the right to marry? The Supreme Court of the United State has said “no,” that free speech may not be taxes. And at least one state has said no to marriage. How can a right be constitutionally protected if the citizen may be taxed and frustrated from its exercise?

Mr. Aronfeld, if you don’t like the idea of keeping and bearing arms being a right, then just say so. Suggesting it’s some special right that deserves no real protection is intellectually dishonest and unworthy of a legal mind.

11 thoughts on “Failing to Understand Rights”

  1. The same people who say this crap will also go ballistic over showing ID before you can vote. Amazing. I can’t wait till the court opinions on voter ID find their way into 2A case law.

    1. Same here, if they hold that showing an ID card to exercise one right is un-Constitutional, then isn’t it un-Constitutional for ALL Rights?

      Can’t have it two ways……

  2. I’m going to have to at least halfway agree with the guy, it shouldn’t be cheap. It should be free.

    Considering it’s only 4 fairly common words, a lot of really smart people seem to have a lot of trouble understanding “shall not be infringed.”

    1. Just why should it not be cheap? Remember, cheap in this context means the cost you have to pay to get a permission slip from the government to exercise your constitutional rights.

  3. I wonder if this has any relation to taxing smokers to pay for new sports arenas, hospitals, etc. We do a lot of that in my State. I don’t smoke, but feel for the guys who do, because what if they start taxing my guns and ammo for their favorite project or new edifice? Plus, the elitists boldly state their goal with these taxes is to eliminate smoking. Now, apply their statement to guns!

    1. Watch for diversion of Pittman–Robertson funds when the Federal government starts getting really desperate, enough to check underneath the sofa cushions for lost change.
      (They already do that with the much bigger air traffic control fund as I recall.)

  4. If we’re going to make rights more expensive how about we limit voting to those who can produce a tax receipt for a minimum of $1000? Property or income only, no general sales taxes.

    1. Billll: I LOVE your idea! With the coming hyper-inflation, however, you had better have that indexed to 2012 dollars, or perhaps to an ounce of gold. And perhaps require two such years of receipts so tax tricks can’t be used to qualify only in voting years. But otherwise, I’m with you!!!!

Comments are closed.