5 ms·

This seems like a constitutional challenge just waiting to blow up, and similar measures for other rights enumerated in the Constitution would be pretty clearly

This seems like a constitutional challenge just waiting to blow up, and similar measures for other rights enumerated in the Constitution would be pretty clearly unconstitutional: e.g. > The government may make no law establishing religion, but members of fundamentalist/extremist religions will need to pay insurance fees to reimburse for extremist violence committed by others of their religion. > People choosing not to quarter soldiers in their homes will have to pay a fee towards military housing for those soldiers; people who choose to quarter soldiers don't have to pay these fees. etc.

staticman2 5y ago
Judges may agree with you. But on the other hand you can make up slippery slope arguments about anything. Here's one: the government can currently limit people under 18 from buying guns. This is a constitutional challenge waiting to blow up, imagine if the government said you have freedom of religion, provided you are at least 100 years old. Clearly this is absurd, so 5 year olds need to be able to buy guns, since one will lead to the other or one scenario is logically inconsistent with the other.
- chrisco255 5y ago
  5 year olds can shoot guns. I've shot guns since I was 8 and got my hunter's safety permit at 14. At any rate, this law is an unconstitutional absurdity designed to be agitating and inconvenient while accomplishing nothing except stroking someone's ego.
  - staticman2 5y ago
    Some states limit the ability for children to buy guns. This has not been deemed unconstitutional.
- gameman144 5y ago
  Fair enough point, it'll be interesting to see this pan out. It seems to me, though, that there are two distinct categories here. On the one hand is what the criteria are under which one can exercise their rights. This is where your age criteria for guns, or "fire-in-a-crowded-theater" exceptions, or not being able to practice cannibalism just because it's your religion, come into play. On the other hand, though, is penalties that exist solely because you're exercising your rights. To say that a given piece of speech (or the right of an individual to buy a gun) isn't permissible is one thing, which is what I think you're referring to above. To say that a given piece of speech (or the right to buy a gun) is permissible, but that the government will penalize you for saying it anyway seems like an absolute breach of your rights.
  - krapp 5y ago
    I have to buy health insurance, even if it mostly subsidizes people less healthy than myself. I have to buy car insurance even if I'm a good driver. When a legally allowed activity can have significant negative effects on society (as gun ownership does) it's not uncommon that society requires compensation through taxes or insurance.
    - prepend 5y ago
      Everyone has to buy Heath insurance. I think the issue here is that only gun owners are paying this new tax.
      - pyuser583 5y ago
        Wasn’t there a SCOTUS case recently that said this isn’t the case? The fine is $0.
        jimmygrapes 5y ago
        The way it currently stands is that as a U.S. Citizen/Permanent Resident you are required by law to have a documented health insurance with a defined minimal set of coverage based on your circumstances; however, there is no penalty, fee, or other legal method of enforcement of this law, which makes it effectively meaningless. It is on this basis that SCOTUS in recent weeks ruled that there is no reason to change the law, since there is no harm caused by it. A bit screwy, but it's logically sound.
    - abduhl 5y ago
      Which of your examples are constitutional rights?
- refurb 5y ago
  Sure, but age limits are a part of “strict scrutiny” (generally accepted that until you reach the age of majority your rights are limited - or at least exercised by parents on your behalf). Yes, rights can be curtailed, but there must be a good reason and the law carefully crafted to only address that concern and nothing else. San Francisco’s law banning firearms in public housing was struck down after the NRA challenged it. Similar issue - you can’t say “sure! we support gun rights and you can have a gun in your home, but public housing is special and not really your home”. The govt can’t provide housing then turn around and say you lose rights because of it. The courts aren’t very big fans of these “de facto banning by carefully creating requirements that are impossible or near impossible to meet”. In fact, under strict scrutiny, the burden of any requirements have to be justified - even minor hurdles to exercising rights can be deemed unconstitutional.
- amadeuspagel 5y ago
  There are all sorts of limitations on what minors can do, including limitations on constitutional rights. This is a pretty well established exception and not at all comparable to taxing people for exercising their rights.
  - staticman2 5y ago
    Sure, but there's nothing in the constitution saying minors have less rights. So it's just as "wacky" to give them less rights based on the text of the constitution as anything else. My point is any constitutuonal debate is going to be wacky. All that really is going to matter is how a judge feels, ultimately. Incidentally the text of the constitution was only meant to apply to the federal government initially so based on the actual text state governments can 100% ban guns, ban free speech, throw you in jail without the right to an attorney, etc. The Supreme Court does not interpret the constitution in that fashion today but that's a judge made reading.
    - amadeuspagel 5y ago
      As long as we have had laws, there has been some conception of a minor, someone who does not have the rights and duties of an adult. The authors of the constitution were well aware of this. This is not as "wacky" as anything some cynical politician came up with three days ago.
krapp 5y ago
How is it a Constitutional challenge? The Second Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, and this law doesn't appear to abridge that right.
- prepend 5y ago
  I suppose in the same way that a poll tax does or doesn’t abridge voting.
  - krapp 5y ago
    Poll taxes are forbidden by the Constitution - paying insurance isn't. And the Venn diagram of gun owners and people who believe there should be a mandatory ID requirement for voting - a poll tax by another name - deeply overlaps, so that's a disingenuous argument.
    - prepend 5y ago
      Poll taxes are forbidden by laws (I think civil rights voting act). Voting isn’t a right called out in the constitution, firearms are. I was just clarifying that charging a fee definitely limits an activity. People argued for poll taxes saying it wasn’t a large amount, it wasn’t, but the fees were enacted to limit voting. And specifically discriminate based on race. Not good. This “insurance” fee is designed to limit gun ownership so likely conflicts with the constitution.

staticman2 5y ago

Judges may agree with you. But on the other hand you can make up slippery slope arguments about anything. Here's one: the government can currently limit people under 18 from buying guns. This is a constitutional challenge waiting to blow up, imagine if the government said you have freedom of religion, provided you are at least 100 years old. Clearly this is absurd, so 5 year olds need to be able to buy guns, since one will lead to the other or one scenario is logically inconsistent with the other.

chrisco255 5y ago
5 year olds can shoot guns. I've shot guns since I was 8 and got my hunter's safety permit at 14. At any rate, this law is an unconstitutional absurdity designed to be agitating and inconvenient while accomplishing nothing except stroking someone's ego.
- staticman2 5y ago
  Some states limit the ability for children to buy guns. This has not been deemed unconstitutional.
gameman144 5y ago
Fair enough point, it'll be interesting to see this pan out. It seems to me, though, that there are two distinct categories here. On the one hand is what the criteria are under which one can exercise their rights. This is where your age criteria for guns, or "fire-in-a-crowded-theater" exceptions, or not being able to practice cannibalism just because it's your religion, come into play. On the other hand, though, is penalties that exist solely because you're exercising your rights. To say that a given piece of speech (or the right of an individual to buy a gun) isn't permissible is one thing, which is what I think you're referring to above. To say that a given piece of speech (or the right to buy a gun) is permissible, but that the government will penalize you for saying it anyway seems like an absolute breach of your rights.
- krapp 5y ago
  I have to buy health insurance, even if it mostly subsidizes people less healthy than myself. I have to buy car insurance even if I'm a good driver. When a legally allowed activity can have significant negative effects on society (as gun ownership does) it's not uncommon that society requires compensation through taxes or insurance.
  - prepend 5y ago
    Everyone has to buy Heath insurance. I think the issue here is that only gun owners are paying this new tax.
    - pyuser583 5y ago
      Wasn’t there a SCOTUS case recently that said this isn’t the case? The fine is $0.
      - jimmygrapes 5y ago
        The way it currently stands is that as a U.S. Citizen/Permanent Resident you are required by law to have a documented health insurance with a defined minimal set of coverage based on your circumstances; however, there is no penalty, fee, or other legal method of enforcement of this law, which makes it effectively meaningless. It is on this basis that SCOTUS in recent weeks ruled that there is no reason to change the law, since there is no harm caused by it. A bit screwy, but it's logically sound.
  - abduhl 5y ago
    Which of your examples are constitutional rights?
refurb 5y ago
Sure, but age limits are a part of “strict scrutiny” (generally accepted that until you reach the age of majority your rights are limited - or at least exercised by parents on your behalf). Yes, rights can be curtailed, but there must be a good reason and the law carefully crafted to only address that concern and nothing else. San Francisco’s law banning firearms in public housing was struck down after the NRA challenged it. Similar issue - you can’t say “sure! we support gun rights and you can have a gun in your home, but public housing is special and not really your home”. The govt can’t provide housing then turn around and say you lose rights because of it. The courts aren’t very big fans of these “de facto banning by carefully creating requirements that are impossible or near impossible to meet”. In fact, under strict scrutiny, the burden of any requirements have to be justified - even minor hurdles to exercising rights can be deemed unconstitutional.
amadeuspagel 5y ago
There are all sorts of limitations on what minors can do, including limitations on constitutional rights. This is a pretty well established exception and not at all comparable to taxing people for exercising their rights.
- staticman2 5y ago
  Sure, but there's nothing in the constitution saying minors have less rights. So it's just as "wacky" to give them less rights based on the text of the constitution as anything else. My point is any constitutuonal debate is going to be wacky. All that really is going to matter is how a judge feels, ultimately. Incidentally the text of the constitution was only meant to apply to the federal government initially so based on the actual text state governments can 100% ban guns, ban free speech, throw you in jail without the right to an attorney, etc. The Supreme Court does not interpret the constitution in that fashion today but that's a judge made reading.
  - amadeuspagel 5y ago
    As long as we have had laws, there has been some conception of a minor, someone who does not have the rights and duties of an adult. The authors of the constitution were well aware of this. This is not as "wacky" as anything some cynical politician came up with three days ago.

krapp 5y ago

How is it a Constitutional challenge? The Second Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, and this law doesn't appear to abridge that right.

prepend 5y ago
I suppose in the same way that a poll tax does or doesn’t abridge voting.
- krapp 5y ago
  Poll taxes are forbidden by the Constitution - paying insurance isn't. And the Venn diagram of gun owners and people who believe there should be a mandatory ID requirement for voting - a poll tax by another name - deeply overlaps, so that's a disingenuous argument.
  - prepend 5y ago
    Poll taxes are forbidden by laws (I think civil rights voting act). Voting isn’t a right called out in the constitution, firearms are. I was just clarifying that charging a fee definitely limits an activity. People argued for poll taxes saying it wasn’t a large amount, it wasn’t, but the fees were enacted to limit voting. And specifically discriminate based on race. Not good. This “insurance” fee is designed to limit gun ownership so likely conflicts with the constitution.