Only concerning matters of the Second Amendment do citizens have to pay money in order to exercise their God-given rights. As free citizens, we do not have to obtain a permit to speak freely. We do not have to pay a free to publish an editorial. We do not have to pay money to remain free from cruel and unusual punishments nor warrantless searches and seizures.
However, for some unexplained reason, the left views it as entirely reasonable that citizens should have to apply to bear arms. They must submit fingerprints, ID, and, of course, money to pay the government for the expenses associated with infringing upon our rights.
In order to exercise one’s right to bear arms in a practical sense, the burden is even more onerous. While many states offer a “shall issue” concealed carry permitting process, many states also offer a “may issue” process which, as the name suggests, obliges citizens to beg for their right to carry a weapon and if the government deems them worthy, they may be allowed to pay for an expensive permit and training.
In some states, this is a relatively-modest expense ranging around $60. In other states, the process can be hundreds or even thousands of dollars.
Now, one state is considering offering tax credits to help offset the costs imposed upon gun owners.
Republican Representative Steve Montenegro, the House majority leader in Arizona, is pushing a proposal to offer Arizona residents an $80 tax credit to pay for the $60 permit and the training that goes along with it.
“Law enforcement have told us time and again that the first line of defense are those that carry CCW permits.” He also stated, “In essence, what it does is it’s bringing a level of awareness that we want to make sure that we can say maybe the next generation of those that want to have or possess firearms, they understand that we as a state value making sure that people are educated in how to use weapons or how to carry weapons.”
In contrast, authorities in Lowell, Massachusetts, just began a new permitting process that requires residents to explain why they should receive a concealed carry permit in an essay that is to be judged solely by the police chief. If he should find the citizens (or, in this case, subjects) deserving, they may undergo costly training that extends beyond the already-absurd requirements mandated by Massachusetts state law.
For those who feel that such an absurd measure is a “good idea,” ask yourself: how reasonable would it be if this standard were applied to other inalienable rights? To write an essay to obtain a “free speech” permit? To have soldiers quartered in one’s home unless the homeowners are willing to write an essay explaining why their home should remain their own?
Such a measure seems pretty tyrannical and silly when viewed in this context, doesn’t it.
And that is precisely the point furthered by Second Amendment advocates…