Great example of why we can't trust Liberals with our Constitution rights.

[Flash]

The Bruen decision said that the states must allow the right to keep and bear arms or show overwhelming evidence on why it should be infringed..

However, the Democrats, as usual, don't believe in the Bill of Rights.

This is a great example of why we can't trust Liberals in general and Democrat specifically with our Constitutional Rights. They will always do the wrong thing. Imagine charging $1300 to enjoy any of the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Then the leaders in California wonder why a thousand people are leaving California every day.

https://www.guns.com/news/2023/04/12/city-approves-plan-for-1-300-carry-permits

When state lawmakers removed a cap on carry permit fees in 2019, gun rights advocates warned something like this would happen.

The Democrat-controlled City Council of Morgan Hill, California last week gave a 4-1 thumbs up for a plan that establishes a fee scale for city-issued concealed carry permits. As the city fundamentally had a "no issue" policy when it came to such CCW licenses, the Morgan Hill Police Department has none in circulation. Those who sought a permit from the city were left to prove a subjective "special need" to authorities.

However, with the U.S. Supreme Court's Bruen decision last year upending such "proper cause" no-issue permitting schemes, Morgan Hill's City Council got cracking on a fee schedule that instead sets an almost impossibly high bar to obtaining a locally issued CCW.

A staff report approved by the Council on April 5 holds that the cost for a permit would be around $1,366 per applicant. This would include $131 in miscellaneous city feeds, a $150 psychological test, 16 hours of firearms safety training at an approved course for approximately $350, and $20 for fingerprints.

The real zinger, however, is $800 for the CCW itself.

The Council maintains the $800 processing fee is needed to cover the six hours of review for each permit by a Community Services Officer ($419.52), another hour of review by a police Sergeant ($167.81), and an hour under the eyes of a Police Captain ($209.56.)

For now, renewals for future CCWs would be a bargain at just $227.

The city, an affluent community at the southern tip of Silicon Valley, in the San Francisco Bay Area, expects to begin issuing permits sometime in May.

The ability to set almost any fee for locally issued CCW permits stems from a 2019 bill, AB 1297, which was among 15 anti-gun proposals signed into law at the same time by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The measure deleted the existing $100 limit on processing fees for police chiefs or sheriffs who issue concealed firearm licenses in the state. The California Rifle & Pistol Association at the time warned lawmakers that the bill “will result in high and inconsistent fees charged throughout the state.”

The move by Morgan Hill is not the first time that local governments have attempted to price out facets of the right to keep and bear arms. In 2016, lawmakers in the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands instituted a $1,000 excise tax on handguns that was subsequently found unconstitutional by a federal court. Of note, both the CMNI and California are part of the same federal judicial court of appeals-- the U.S. 9th Circuit.

 

[2aguy]

The Bruen decision said that the states must allow the right to keep and bear arms or show overwhelming evidence on why it should be infringed..

However, the Democrats, as usual, don't believe in the Bill of Rights.

This is a great example of why we can't trust Liberals in general and Democrat specifically with our Constitutional Rights. They will always do the wrong thing. Imagine charging $1300 to enjoy any of the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Then the leaders in California wonder why a thousand people are leaving California every day.

https://www.guns.com/news/2023/04/12/city-approves-plan-for-1-300-carry-permits

When state lawmakers removed a cap on carry permit fees in 2019, gun rights advocates warned something like this would happen.

The Democrat-controlled City Council of Morgan Hill, California last week gave a 4-1 thumbs up for a plan that establishes a fee scale for city-issued concealed carry permits. As the city fundamentally had a "no issue" policy when it came to such CCW licenses, the Morgan Hill Police Department has none in circulation. Those who sought a permit from the city were left to prove a subjective "special need" to authorities.

However, with the U.S. Supreme Court's Bruen decision last year upending such "proper cause" no-issue permitting schemes, Morgan Hill's City Council got cracking on a fee schedule that instead sets an almost impossibly high bar to obtaining a locally issued CCW.

A staff report approved by the Council on April 5 holds that the cost for a permit would be around $1,366 per applicant. This would include $131 in miscellaneous city feeds, a $150 psychological test, 16 hours of firearms safety training at an approved course for approximately $350, and $20 for fingerprints.

The real zinger, however, is $800 for the CCW itself.

The Council maintains the $800 processing fee is needed to cover the six hours of review for each permit by a Community Services Officer ($419.52), another hour of review by a police Sergeant ($167.81), and an hour under the eyes of a Police Captain ($209.56.)

For now, renewals for future CCWs would be a bargain at just $227.

The city, an affluent community at the southern tip of Silicon Valley, in the San Francisco Bay Area, expects to begin issuing permits sometime in May.

The ability to set almost any fee for locally issued CCW permits stems from a 2019 bill, AB 1297, which was among 15 anti-gun proposals signed into law at the same time by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The measure deleted the existing $100 limit on processing fees for police chiefs or sheriffs who issue concealed firearm licenses in the state. The California Rifle & Pistol Association at the time warned lawmakers that the bill “will result in high and inconsistent fees charged throughout the state.”

The move by Morgan Hill is not the first time that local governments have attempted to price out facets of the right to keep and bear arms. In 2016, lawmakers in the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands instituted a $1,000 excise tax on handguns that was subsequently found unconstitutional by a federal court. Of note, both the CMNI and California are part of the same federal judicial court of appeals-- the U.S. 9th Circuit.

And this is why some 2nd Amendment supporters are foolish when they say that we need to require training requirements to own or carry a gun......

This is exactly why that is a really, stupid idea............

 

[2aguy]

The Bruen decision said that the states must allow the right to keep and bear arms or show overwhelming evidence on why it should be infringed..

However, the Democrats, as usual, don't believe in the Bill of Rights.

This is a great example of why we can't trust Liberals in general and Democrat specifically with our Constitutional Rights. They will always do the wrong thing. Imagine charging $1300 to enjoy any of the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Then the leaders in California wonder why a thousand people are leaving California every day.

https://www.guns.com/news/2023/04/12/city-approves-plan-for-1-300-carry-permits

When state lawmakers removed a cap on carry permit fees in 2019, gun rights advocates warned something like this would happen.

The Democrat-controlled City Council of Morgan Hill, California last week gave a 4-1 thumbs up for a plan that establishes a fee scale for city-issued concealed carry permits. As the city fundamentally had a "no issue" policy when it came to such CCW licenses, the Morgan Hill Police Department has none in circulation. Those who sought a permit from the city were left to prove a subjective "special need" to authorities.

However, with the U.S. Supreme Court's Bruen decision last year upending such "proper cause" no-issue permitting schemes, Morgan Hill's City Council got cracking on a fee schedule that instead sets an almost impossibly high bar to obtaining a locally issued CCW.

A staff report approved by the Council on April 5 holds that the cost for a permit would be around $1,366 per applicant. This would include $131 in miscellaneous city feeds, a $150 psychological test, 16 hours of firearms safety training at an approved course for approximately $350, and $20 for fingerprints.

The real zinger, however, is $800 for the CCW itself.

The Council maintains the $800 processing fee is needed to cover the six hours of review for each permit by a Community Services Officer ($419.52), another hour of review by a police Sergeant ($167.81), and an hour under the eyes of a Police Captain ($209.56.)

For now, renewals for future CCWs would be a bargain at just $227.

The city, an affluent community at the southern tip of Silicon Valley, in the San Francisco Bay Area, expects to begin issuing permits sometime in May.

The ability to set almost any fee for locally issued CCW permits stems from a 2019 bill, AB 1297, which was among 15 anti-gun proposals signed into law at the same time by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The measure deleted the existing $100 limit on processing fees for police chiefs or sheriffs who issue concealed firearm licenses in the state. The California Rifle & Pistol Association at the time warned lawmakers that the bill “will result in high and inconsistent fees charged throughout the state.”

The move by Morgan Hill is not the first time that local governments have attempted to price out facets of the right to keep and bear arms. In 2016, lawmakers in the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands instituted a $1,000 excise tax on handguns that was subsequently found unconstitutional by a federal court. Of note, both the CMNI and California are part of the same federal judicial court of appeals-- the U.S. 9th Circuit.

The move by Morgan Hill is not the first time that local governments have attempted to price out facets of the right

Correct……the democrat party used the same tactic after the Civil War, a war they started to keep blacks as slaves, to keep freed blacks from exercising their Right to vote……fees and tests are the tried and true democrat party tactics ….

They will never stop….they never rest……they want power and will do anything to get it…

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Bruen decision said that the states must allow the right to keep and bear arms or show overwhelming evidence on why it should be infringed..
However, the Democrats, as usual, don't believe in the Bill of Rights.

As soon as Bruen came out, Democrats started working on ways to get around it.

They are HOSTILE to the right to keep and bear arms and will do everything in their power to limit it in every way they can.

We need not wonder why.

 

[Kilroy2]

Once upon a time republicans were liberal and Democrats were conservative

Then at some point in time it flipped.

 

[2aguy]

Once upon a time republicans were liberal and Democrats were conservative

Then at some point in time it flipped.

No...it didn't flip.....the democrats have always been the party of racism and a violence...they have never been liberal.....

 

[BULLDOG]

It's quite common for a gun nut to say " a fully armed society is a polite society". Just one quick question. Is a drunk with a gun more polite than a drunk without a gun? The same question for someone caught up in a road rage incident. Is a road rager more polite with or without a gun?

 

[Foxfyre]

Once upon a time republicans were liberal and Democrats were conservative

Then at some point in time it flipped.

Democrats have really never been conservative as we define conservatism in America in modern times. They have never been 'classical liberals'--pro small, efficient, effective, necessary government, maximum liberty/civil liberties for the citizens, free trade/laizzez-faire economics, rule of law applied evenly and equitably to all. All are equal in the eyes of the law, no classes of people, especially protected classes. Any benevolence should be extremely rare if provided by the government at all.

Democrats have always looked for government solutions to everything and oppose many of the libertarian (small "L")/classical liberal concepts. But they haven't always been woke, leftist, radical Marxists. There was a time when they were good citizens, loved American values, traditions, the flag, the National Anthem, traditional values, all commonly shared with the Republicans.

The Republicans have blown it from time to time, but for the most part have embraced the classical liberalism of the Founders, i.e. modern American conservatism, fairly closely.

The MAGA vision is bringing American back to its basic roots.

The Democrats have pretty much lost their way entirely and yes, because they despise traditional America and the Constitution that governs it, they cannot be trusted with our constitutional rights.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

The Bruen decision said that the states must allow the right to keep and bear arms or show overwhelming evidence on why it should be infringed..

However, the Democrats, as usual, don't believe in the Bill of Rights.

This is a great example of why we can't trust Liberals in general and Democrat specifically with our Constitutional Rights. They will always do the wrong thing. Imagine charging $1300 to enjoy any of the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Then the leaders in California wonder why a thousand people are leaving California every day.

https://www.guns.com/news/2023/04/12/city-approves-plan-for-1-300-carry-permits

When state lawmakers removed a cap on carry permit fees in 2019, gun rights advocates warned something like this would happen.

The Democrat-controlled City Council of Morgan Hill, California last week gave a 4-1 thumbs up for a plan that establishes a fee scale for city-issued concealed carry permits. As the city fundamentally had a "no issue" policy when it came to such CCW licenses, the Morgan Hill Police Department has none in circulation. Those who sought a permit from the city were left to prove a subjective "special need" to authorities.

However, with the U.S. Supreme Court's Bruen decision last year upending such "proper cause" no-issue permitting schemes, Morgan Hill's City Council got cracking on a fee schedule that instead sets an almost impossibly high bar to obtaining a locally issued CCW.

A staff report approved by the Council on April 5 holds that the cost for a permit would be around $1,366 per applicant. This would include $131 in miscellaneous city feeds, a $150 psychological test, 16 hours of firearms safety training at an approved course for approximately $350, and $20 for fingerprints.

The real zinger, however, is $800 for the CCW itself.

The Council maintains the $800 processing fee is needed to cover the six hours of review for each permit by a Community Services Officer ($419.52), another hour of review by a police Sergeant ($167.81), and an hour under the eyes of a Police Captain ($209.56.)

For now, renewals for future CCWs would be a bargain at just $227.

The city, an affluent community at the southern tip of Silicon Valley, in the San Francisco Bay Area, expects to begin issuing permits sometime in May.

The ability to set almost any fee for locally issued CCW permits stems from a 2019 bill, AB 1297, which was among 15 anti-gun proposals signed into law at the same time by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The measure deleted the existing $100 limit on processing fees for police chiefs or sheriffs who issue concealed firearm licenses in the state. The California Rifle & Pistol Association at the time warned lawmakers that the bill “will result in high and inconsistent fees charged throughout the state.”

The move by Morgan Hill is not the first time that local governments have attempted to price out facets of the right to keep and bear arms. In 2016, lawmakers in the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands instituted a $1,000 excise tax on handguns that was subsequently found unconstitutional by a federal court. Of note, both the CMNI and California are part of the same federal judicial court of appeals-- the U.S. 9th Circuit.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

The Bruen decision said that the states must allow the right to keep and bear arms or show overwhelming evidence on why it should be infringed..

However, the Democrats, as usual, don't believe in the Bill of Rights.

This is a great example of why we can't trust Liberals in general and Democrat specifically with our Constitutional Rights. They will always do the wrong thing. Imagine charging $1300 to enjoy any of the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Then the leaders in California wonder why a thousand people are leaving California every day.

https://www.guns.com/news/2023/04/12/city-approves-plan-for-1-300-carry-permits

When state lawmakers removed a cap on carry permit fees in 2019, gun rights advocates warned something like this would happen.

The Democrat-controlled City Council of Morgan Hill, California last week gave a 4-1 thumbs up for a plan that establishes a fee scale for city-issued concealed carry permits. As the city fundamentally had a "no issue" policy when it came to such CCW licenses, the Morgan Hill Police Department has none in circulation. Those who sought a permit from the city were left to prove a subjective "special need" to authorities.

However, with the U.S. Supreme Court's Bruen decision last year upending such "proper cause" no-issue permitting schemes, Morgan Hill's City Council got cracking on a fee schedule that instead sets an almost impossibly high bar to obtaining a locally issued CCW.

A staff report approved by the Council on April 5 holds that the cost for a permit would be around $1,366 per applicant. This would include $131 in miscellaneous city feeds, a $150 psychological test, 16 hours of firearms safety training at an approved course for approximately $350, and $20 for fingerprints.

The real zinger, however, is $800 for the CCW itself.

The Council maintains the $800 processing fee is needed to cover the six hours of review for each permit by a Community Services Officer ($419.52), another hour of review by a police Sergeant ($167.81), and an hour under the eyes of a Police Captain ($209.56.)

For now, renewals for future CCWs would be a bargain at just $227.

The city, an affluent community at the southern tip of Silicon Valley, in the San Francisco Bay Area, expects to begin issuing permits sometime in May.

The ability to set almost any fee for locally issued CCW permits stems from a 2019 bill, AB 1297, which was among 15 anti-gun proposals signed into law at the same time by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The measure deleted the existing $100 limit on processing fees for police chiefs or sheriffs who issue concealed firearm licenses in the state. The California Rifle & Pistol Association at the time warned lawmakers that the bill “will result in high and inconsistent fees charged throughout the state.”

The move by Morgan Hill is not the first time that local governments have attempted to price out facets of the right to keep and bear arms. In 2016, lawmakers in the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands instituted a $1,000 excise tax on handguns that was subsequently found unconstitutional by a federal court. Of note, both the CMNI and California are part of the same federal judicial court of appeals-- the U.S. 9th Circuit.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Foxfyre]

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Not sure where you are going with this, but the thorny phrase in that amendment a "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Sooner or later SCOTUS is going to have to make a definitive ruling on whether "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means anybody present, however briefly, in the United States or these are subject to jurisdiction of the country where they are citizens.

The Founders were pretty clear that their intent was the ambassadors and their families, other diplomats here on government business, people here to do business with the intention of return to their home countries, tourists, visitors and such were not citizens of the United States with all the rights and privileges thereof.

That is the position of all but a tiny handful of countries all over the world.

 

[Kilroy2]

No...it didn't flip.....the democrats have always been the party of racism and a violence...they have never been liberal.....

 

[Kilroy2]

Yes and you must have fell asleep during history class so next time stay awake. Also post sources as at least you have something.

The Great Switch: How Republicans and Democrats Flipped Ideologies

An overview of the realignment of the Republican Party and Democratic Party and how they flipped ideologies of liberal and conservative over the course of US History.

www.studentsofhistory.com

The Democratic and Republican Parties have not always had the same ideals that they have today. In fact, America's two dominant political parties have essentially flipped ideologies in the time since they were founded.

The Democratic Party was founded in 1828 while the Republican Party dates back to 1854.

In its early years, the Republican Party was considered quite liberal, while the Democrats were known for staunch conservatism.

 

[Kilroy2]

Democrats have really never been conservative as we define conservatism in America in modern times. They have never been 'classical liberals'--pro small, efficient, effective, necessary government, maximum liberty/civil liberties for the citizens, free trade/laizzez-faire economics, rule of law applied evenly and equitably to all. All are equal in the eyes of the law, no classes of people, especially protected classes. Any benevolence should be extremely rare if provided by the government at all.

Democrats have always looked for government solutions to everything and oppose many of the libertarian (small "L")/classical liberal concepts. But they haven't always been woke, leftist, radical Marxists. There was a time when they were good citizens, loved American values, traditions, the flag, the National Anthem, traditional values, all commonly shared with the Republicans.

The Republicans have blown it from time to time, but for the most part have embraced the classical liberalism of the Founders, i.e. modern American conservatism, fairly closely.

The MAGA vision is bringing American back to its basic roots.

The Democrats have pretty much lost their way entirely and yes, because they despise traditional America and the Constitution that governs it, they cannot be trusted with our constitutional rights.

Lincoln was a Republican and freed the slaves. That in itself is quite liberal.

This made the southern Democrats quite mad who wanted to keep their slaves. They were conservatives.

 

[Foxfyre]

Lincoln was a Republican and freed the slaves. That in itself is quite liberal.

This made the southern Democrats quite mad who wanted to keep their slaves. They were conservatives.

Lincoln didn't free any slaves that were in union states. Only those in confederate states.

 

[Kilroy2]

Lincoln didn't free any slaves that were in union states. Only those in confederate states.

It started that way but he did open the gates for future actions.

But Yes it was to punish the South by taking away their slaves but not in the North.

Still the idea spread

Still these event led to the emancipation proclamation
and eventually the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery

So Lincoln did free the slaves

Still just because they were free does not mean that they were equal.

Emancipation Proclamation - Definition, Dates & Summary | HISTORY

Issued after the Union victory at Antietam on September 22, 1862, the Emancipation Proclamation carried moral and str...

www.history.com

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's quite common for a gun nut to say " a fully armed society is a polite society". Just one quick question. Is a drunk with a gun more polite than a drunk without a gun? The same question for someone caught up in a road rage incident. Is a road rager more polite with or without a gun?

This is the best you can do?
Of course it is. Silly question. Sorry.

 

[BULLDOG]

This is the best you can do?
Of course it is. Silly question. Sorry.

So answer the question coward.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So answer the question coward.

You'll get a better response if you insult my mom.

 

[LibertyKid]

And this is why some 2nd Amendment supporters are foolish when they say that we need to require training requirements to own or carry a gun......

This is exactly why that is a really, stupid idea............

I understand the premise. Training in and of itself can be seen as method of infringement.

But... Can we do better? I think we can. We understand at the founding of our country, majority of households probably had a few guns. Father had one to hunt and taught his sons and probably a few daughter on how to shoot. Guns were a way of life and had two primary purposes, hunting and more importantly, protecting the people from tyranny. This was taught along with responsible gun ownership.

Fast forward to today, the guns of our forefathers are different, but not only that, the public perception of the 2A, gun ownership, and the proliferation of guns in our country has created a new perception on both sides of the political aisle.

This is for several reasons, the lack of education and training.

If the 2A is a right then we should be educated as to WHY we have that right. It's not personal protection (even though that is a secondary benefit of the 2A), it's the protection of our personal freedom from foreign and domestic tyranny. Our ability to take up arms against a gov't that has overstepped its bounds is the primary reason we have the 2A and why it's also codified in many State constitutions.

Then we should have some training which is birthed out of the right to bear given by the 2A. But how do we do it? The education and training could be done in our high schools using air rifles from trained personnel. In this education it is taught why the 2A exists. Each state can then teach their own individual gun laws because we know that to use a gun carries a big legal burden, justified or not. Then we teach gun safety and basic shooting skills using air rifles.

Then when you graduate HS, you are now know why we are armed and have some basic skills on how to shoot and use a rifle.
This then carries with it culpability. Use a gun in a crime, you were taught the consequences and now will face just punishment.

TBH, I've seen a few 'kids' walk into a gun store who have no clue what they are doing. I get it, it's their right, but we all know they have no clue what they are doing. And that's scary.