Is the cost of the TN HCP equal to a de facto ban on poor people?

[Hgunner]

Well it does not, it has not been given full force to apply to the states. This can be a good or a bad thing. The same court that can say it applies to the states on a 5-4 decision with 5 conservatives and 4 Marxist can easily take away that right with a decision of 5-4 if the court changes the other way. However if it is guaranteed by a state constitution you have a fighting chance of a states right argument. The decision in Chicago my vary well be the ruling that aplllies it to the several states.

You always have to think of the consequences and sometimes try to forsee the unintended consquences of actions. Sorry if you don't like my view point.

Again I don't neccessarily agree with the way the TN Constitution is applied.

My "view to prevent crime" I know is different than most legislators of the past

and probably current legislature.

[eapking]

Just stop buying ammo for one week. That'l cover it.

[TMMT]

Just stop buying ammo for one week. That'l cover it.

Ok, Marie Antoinette...

My original post assumes a working poor couple who have e a gun handed down to them by a relative. It assumes this is not a couple who has the cash to blow on 200 rounds of ammo each week.

[Luckyforward]

Get a life . . .

[Hgunner]

My original post assumes a working poor couple who have e a gun handed down to them by a relative. It assumes this is not a couple who has the cash to blow on 200 rounds of ammo each week.

Ok let s say they are the perfect poor couple, don't smoke, don't drink or are in any way wasteful with their money, Can they not try and save few bucks every week until at least one can afford it. Then save for the other one. Personally I do not see the current setup as overly burdensome, or expensive, and I do not see it as a defacto ban on the poor.

Another option is Vermont carry, change the laws so that anyone and everyone of a given age can carry open or concealed. I have no problem with this either, and would support it.

A third option is start a charity that takes donations and helps poor people in need get the class and their fees paid. I'll make a donation if that helps.

You can take the state to court and get it declared discriminatory and then ruin it for everyone by getting the shall issue laws repealed.

Remember not to many years ago no one could get a carry permit.

You just can't please everyone, all the time.

Have we not learned anything in the past 40 years of the great society, the more we try to help those less fortunate, the more dependent we make them, the more freedom we lose. Not to mention the monetary cost.

[eapking]

Ok, Marie Antoinette...

My original post assumes a working poor couple who have e a gun handed down to them by a relative. It assumes this is not a couple who has the cash to blow on 200 rounds of ammo each week.

Just a little sarcasm...

[TMMT]

Okay, since many here have no problem with the state making you pay for the "privilege" to exercise your rights.

Currently that rights tax is around $200 giver or take...

So whats to stop them from upping the state fee to $200 from $115? Now the cost is over $300 for the completed process.

$300?

$500?

The cost of a permit in DC is well over $500 and it take almost a year to get, as one reporter for the guns rights examiner found out.

So my question to all you gun owning, gun carrying, freedom loving people here.

When does it become so prohibitive that it is a de facto ban for the poor?

$1,000?

$5,000?

How about $10,000?

[Hgunner]

Well TMMT here is what I think you should do. I think you should take this whole social justice theory of permit issuance to the Tennessean, the Commercial Appeal, the Knoxville News Sentinel and the Chattanooga paper( don't know what it is).

Contact the NAACP, Jessie Jackson's Rainbow coaliton, get ahold of Al Sarhpton and any and all other social justice groups and go after shall issue carry for a fee, license,tax, whatever you want to call it. Try and get it corrected, try and fix it.

What you will end up doing is getting every shall issue law repealed, and hopefully that will make you happy. As we will all be miserable and worried about our saftey equally, and no one will be concerned about the cost. As a added bonus it should make your bleeding heart all happy and gay.

Edited April 7, 2010 by Hgunner

[TripleDigitRide]

I don't agree with the fees associated with obtaining your HCP, and I don't think those fees were implemented as a de facto ban on poor people.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Man be careful crimsonaudio came after me for say'in a lot less......

No, he came after you because it is an inalienable right.

The Second Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights to

guarantee you the right to protect yourself by the use of a firearm, if necessary. Your right to protect yourself is a 'natural right'. The argument is simply that it is a ban

because it is taxed excessively for a person with less means than yourself.

The argument that it gives those people incentive doesn't say anything but malice for the right that is stripped from them, that shouldn't cost them anything other than the cost of the firearm and ammunition.

You can't put a price on a right like that without real

discrimination.

[Guest Revelator]

To me the issue here isn't about rich or poor. I don't give a damn that the $200 or so is prohibitive to poor people. It's about the government placing a tax on what may or may not be a basic right depending on who you ask. Well, all fundamental rights have some kind of tax on them. I've never organized a protest but I imagine that it requires getting a permit, perhaps paying some kind of fee along with it, and then being told you have to stay in a certain area. Same thing with marriage, isn't it? Gotta pay a fee to get the license. Haven't seen anyone in this thread complaining about that.

Personally I don't have a problem with paying what is essentially a nominal fee to carry a firearm. Carrying a gun in public should have more restrictions attached to it than keeping one at home. If you don't place any regulations on even the fundamental rights then it becomes a free for all. I know, you can talk about God-given rights and "shall not infringe," but I don't want to live in a free for all kind of world. I like some order, some regulation. Not too much, but some.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Ok let s say they are the perfect poor couple, don't smoke, don't drink or are in any way wasteful with their money, Can they not try and save few bucks every week until at least one can afford it. Then save for the other one. Personally I do not see the current setup as overly burdensome, or expensive, and I do not see it as a defacto ban on the poor.

Another option is Vermont carry, change the laws so that anyone and everyone of a given age can carry open or concealed. I have no problem with this either, and would support it.

A third option is start a charity that takes donations and helps poor people in need get the class and their fees paid. I'll make a donation if that helps.

You can take the state to court and get it declared discriminatory and then ruin it for everyone by getting the shall issue laws repealed.

Remember not to many years ago no one could get a carry permit.

You just can't please everyone, all the time.

Have we not learned anything in the past 40 years of the great society, the more we try to help those less fortunate, the more dependent we make them, the more freedom we lose. Not to mention the monetary cost.

Yep, the solution would be to get rid of the Great Society,

which is the argument you could have made. That would give people the incentive to improve themselves, instead of state run slavery, which is what welfare might as well be. Maybe MacDonald v Chicago will help us with the gun laws.

[TMMT]

I like some order, some regulation. Not too much, but some.

Well of course your fine with more laws and regulations, its essentially job security for you.

You know, kinda like the Divorce Lawyer who started the internet dating and marriage web site.

Seriously your examples of permits for protests and marriage license are great examples but ones I disagree with.

First off the state should not be in the business of sanctioning marriage and therefore divorce. If I want to live with someone and call them my wife that's my business. If I want to have a child its my business. If I want to put them on my insurance its my business. If I want to get married then I can go to church, or Wal-mart... my choice. But the government should not be in the business any of the above.

And the state should not be charging me a fee to exercise my first amendment rights to assemble and speak and peaceably protest.

[Wyldk2]

Well of course your fine with more laws and regulations, its essentially job security for you.

You know, kinda like the Divorce Lawyer who started the internet dating and marriage web site.

Seriously your examples of permits for protests and marriage license are great examples but ones I disagree with.

First off the state should not be in the business of sanctioning marriage and therefore divorce. If I want to live with someone and call them my wife that's my business. If I want to have a child its my business. If I want to put them on my insurance its my business. If I want to get married then I can go to church, or Wal-mart... my choice. But the government should not be in the business any of the above.

And the state should not be charging me a fee to exercise my first amendment rights to assemble and speak and peaceably protest.

AMEN.

Government should only be in the business of protecting life, liberty and property. Staying the heck out of personal lives( let me decide what i want to do without having to ask permission for a given right.) I'm sure most if not all of us could use the cash better spent somewhere else than paying some burecrat for a liscense or permit in order to enjoy life and the rights associated with it.

I'm not poor, Not rich either. But i'm sure if i was poor, i could make the permit paying process work. Just have to give up some things and save.

And when you calculate $200 for the initial permit and class diviced by 4 years( first 4 years) = $50 a year, then for the next 4 years the $50 re-application fee = 12.50 a year. Which is reasonable, even though i don't agree with having to pay the state for a right.

Look at New hampshire, North Carolina, Kentucky, among other right to carry states. They allow open carry, I think a conceal carry permit may only cost $10-$50 for those states.

Heck, in Alabama( which i am real close to that state) a concealed permit cost maybe $20 and a background check and then done. No training required, unless things have changed.

[Guest 270win]

I paid fifty bucks when I moved to TN from Arkansas a few years ago to get a TN permit. I did have an Arkansas concealed handgun license, so that saved me quite a bit of money that many of you had to give to TN.

Now in Arkansas I'll tell you how much I spent...if this makes you feel any better.....I spent 100 bucks for my concealed handgun licensing class after work. The instructor (state LEO) fingerprinted us before the class began on AR State Police/FBI cards...we sat through the silly class I then had to make another trip to the instructor's house to qualify on his range (think ammo and gas). THEN I had to mail off 10 NOTARIZED pages (the instructor had to do the notarizing) of my application, prints, and 150 buck check to the Arkansas State Police in Little Rock...and then wait two months...which six years ago was considered fast turnaround.

If I stayed in Arkansas I would have had take a refresher class for my concealed handgun license and requalify on the range (more money for class/range requal)...ammo costs of requal...and then a renewal fee to the State Police. Both initial AND requals in Arkansas MUST be done with a semi automatic IF you wish to carry a semi auto and revolver...you qual with a revolver...bye bye to carrying a semi auto.

Tennessee, in my opinion, doesn't have it that bad....yeah the cost can be a pain...but it is not as bad as my home state. Alabama would be better where you walk in...pay 20 bucks every year to the county sheriff...get your concealed pistol license as they call it..and be done...and carry wherever you want..i'd rather have Alabama's system to carry wherever I want than Alaska or Vermont where they can't carry anywhere.

[Hgunner]

No, he came after you because it is an inalienable right.

The Second Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights to

guarantee you the right to protect yourself by the use of a firearm, if necessary. Your right to protect yourself is a 'natural right'. The argument is simply that it is a ban

because it is taxed excessively for a person with less means than yourself.

The argument that it gives those people incentive doesn't say anything but malice for the right that is stripped from them, that shouldn't cost them anything other than the cost of the firearm and ammunition.

You can't put a price on a right like that without real

discrimination.

No he came after because of my staement about the wealth of our poor.

See page 3.

I too believe the 2nd Admendment is an inalienable right, but does not yet appy in this case. Hopefully MacDonald will

apply it to the several states, however we are fortunate that we have since the early 90's been able to effect our laws so that we can get carry permits. Again I urge TMMT if he does not like th way things are call you reps and do something about it.

I do not see requiring training and a permit as a unreasonable restriction.

Edited April 7, 2010 by Hgunner

[G27]

No he came after because of my staement about the wealth of our poor.

See page 3.

My post on page 3 reinforces what 6.8 AR said.

I came at you for your characterization of the poor, as I think generalizations like that do nothing to help anyone out, but the motivation was/is that these restrictions are indeed a ban on (some) poor people.

I wonder how you guys would feel if the State required you to take an eight hour course (then prove some unaspiring level of proficiency) regarding libel, slander and other dangers associated with free speech, along with paying a fee in order to exercise said 'freedom'.

[Hgunner]

My post on page 3 reinforces what 6.8 AR said.

I came at you for your characterization of the poor, as I think generalizations like that do nothing to help anyone out, but the motivation was/is that these restrictions are indeed a ban on (some) poor people.

I wonder how you guys would feel if the State required you to take an eight hour course (then prove some unaspiring level of proficiency) regarding libel, slander and other dangers associated with free speech, along with paying a fee in order to exercise said 'freedom'.

Go back and read your response you in no way mentioned any right when you replied to me.

[Hgunner]

Food for thought .

The SCOTUS on Heller applied the 2nd A to DC (not a state) and stated reasonable restrictions were acceptable. Thats with a 5-4 pro 2A court.

What do you think the out come would have been with a 5-4 con 2A court.

What if SCOTUS applies the 2A to the states in MacDonald and reasonable restrictions are ok. Again with a 5-4 Pro 2A court, what if they say Chicago restrictions are reasonable? Lets assume though that they consider them unreasnable restrictions.

How will this go a few years down the road if the court goes the other way 5-4 Con 2A. They could very well say dracoian restriction are reasonable, careful what you wish for in a SCOTUS ruling.

Just being the advocate.

[G27]

Go back and read your response you in no way mentioned any right when you replied to me.

Poor-Man is back, reading people's minds and applying his omniscience to all discussion!

The ENTIRE THREAD is about rights!

You're something else, my man. You've actually got me laughing aloud at you right now. Thanks for the smile!

[Hgunner]

You sound like someone who's never been poor.

Where in this reply is a 2A inalienable right argument made.

[Hgunner]

Poor-Man is back, reading people's minds and applying his omniscience to all discussion!

The ENTIRE THREAD is about rights!

You're something else, my man. You've actually got me laughing aloud at you right now. Thanks for the smile!

Like in your first reply you want to throw personal insults go ahead, hell while your at go ahead and call me Racist.

[Derek]

Again, I suggest you READ the statute.

It can be A, B, or C, depending on circumstances.

39-17-1307

http://michie.com/tennessee

- OS

sorry to be such a pain. I use forums such as this for READING and RESOURCES. You made yourself sound like you knew more than me on the subject which is why I asked.

Looks like Google is much more user friendly.

[JAB]

sorry to be such a pain. I use forums such as this for READING and RESOURCES. You made yourself sound like you knew more than me on the subject which is why I asked.

Looks like Google is much more user friendly.

I don't think that OS was being unfriendly. The thing is, anyone who reads the statute may interpret it slightly differently. While sometimes those who post here may say what they think the statute means (or discuss or even argue about differing interpretations), the person qualified to interpret the statute for you - with case law to back up that interpretation - would be an attorney. Beyond that, the person best qualified to decide what you think the statute means is you. When OS suggests that you read the statute for yourself, he is simply saying that you would be better off seeing what you think of it rather than relying on someone else's interpretation. To be truthful, this actually shows respect for you and your ability to read the statute and form your own opinion rather than simply telling you what to believe (while avoiding the pitfalls of trying to give 'legal advice' to someone on an Internet forum when he may or may not even be qualified to give such advice.)

[Guest ADAM]

I know Im going to get ripped for this but here goes. I have to agree with Hgunner as far as getting your priorities in the right order. If your truly poor or underprivilaged or whatever you wish to call it, you shouldnt be worried about an HCP, you should be more interested in making ends meet, such as the basic needs food, shelter, etc. And yes I do believe that most of the so called "poor" are lazy because it is easier to sit back and draw a check then to get up off their ass and go find a job. If you cant afford 200.00 for a HCP its not going to make them anymore wealthier to have one. I also believe that the fees are just more red tape to see if you actually care enough and are responsible enough to have one. THIS IS JUST MY OPINION.