10$ BGC fee analogous to polling tax and therefore unconstitutional?

I realize I'm probably soliciting opinions from the wrong crowd here, but how is the $10 BGC fee any different than a polling tax? Since the 2A guarantees our right to keep and bear arms (arguably, according to some politicians), isn't the fee a barrier to the exercise of our rights?

The courts have already determined that charging a fee to vote is unconstitutional. How is this any different?

I was wondering if there's a potential lawsuit here against the state but figured I'd float the idea here. Opinions on why this WOULDN'T be viable are more valuable than why it should.

And discuss...

There is that,

And then there is that the CBI was created as an addition to the FBI check, and they said they would never charge a fee for it, that it would be paid for by the government.

They used to charge a fee years ago and somehow it was decided that they couldn't.. Anyone know what that ruling was?

Which of your other constitutional rights require you to pay a fee to the government before you can exercise them? I'll just wait over here for an answer...

This was one of the big angst points over voter ID. ID costs money, so the Dems were up in arms about disenfranchising voters.

I think all three of the Colorado gun control laws will be struck down. BGC fee is unconstitutional. Mag capacity is unenforceable and possibly unconstitutional. Universal BGC is problematic at best. If not struck down then taken down after 2014 elections.

Universal Background Check will pass muster, I think. It was never shot down when it was set up for dealers.

Mag cap ban could fail based on the poor language in it, unless the judge does a line item veto on the potential to be expanded part.

Background check fee will fail because it goes against the contract the government has with the people.

I thought the last BGC fee was repealed by legislation, not courts.

BGC are gun registration by proxy ( registering people), which is against Colorado law.

I doesn't matter, the government always says "overwhelming public safety concerns"

There's something fundamentally wrong with a country calling it self the bastion of freedom locking up more of it's citizens per capita then the next three countries combined. From that very basis the supremes will never back down on supporting unlimited government intrusion into our lives IN GENERAL, yet preserve the right for someone to put his genetalia in a meat grinder and call it art...

"I'm a supreme court justice, therefore whatever I think IS right, therefor to determine if something is right, one must only look to my opinion."

Hubris is too mild a word to describe what we've let the supremes become.

Lifetime appointments? NO electoral review? Didja folks also know that in the "beginning" the supreme court would summon a JURY to determine matters? They still can, but they're SO GOOD now that they just don't need to - ever!

I've been accused of "abandoning" my fight for livberty - I actually believe that my liberty doesn't hinge (anymore) on what any politician says or does and therefore don't pay any attention to them - you can't blame a cow for making cow patties and you can't blame a politician for doing their job either.

We ASKED for it. And when "we" ran the government it was just as bad, it's just that there was a little "R" after the name of our president(s) then.

I can't even think that Reagan was all that much of a preserver of our freedom - the 1986 ban on automatic registrations in the NFA? We have his signature to thank for that. In fact, as often as not, a republican signed or instituted anti-gun legislation at the federal level as much as any democrat.

1968 GCA - Johnson
"Sporting Purpose" - G HW Bush
etc...

ANY president since George the First could have eliminated the sporting purpose test - it was and is only a presidential directive that has been inculcated into so much federal beaurocracy that we actually count PARTS in a gun to determine legality.

The charge to "offset the costs of gun violence" was inevitable. Want to know where we're headed ? Take a look at Australia today in the aftermath of the laws passed after Port Arthur.

They can do it, because they say they can.

There is electoral review in that Congress has to approve the appointment. And Congress is elected by us.

I think public safety concerns will be a hard sell since the two big shootings recently consisted of guns purchased with background checks. Holmes bought all his guns through stores here. Lanza killed his mom and took her legally owned guns.

No, congress does not - the Senate does and the senate USED to represent the state's interests - but when it changed under Roosevelt to popular vote, the power to confirm was kept as it was once considered the "check" on increasing federal power to have the Senate as a powerful "stopper" - didja know that prior to Roosevelt ANY senator who failed to surrender the gavel could filibuster as long as he stayed?

We vote for everything EXCEPT federal judges