{"id":14598,"date":"2017-06-02T10:04:59","date_gmt":"2017-06-02T14:04:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.gunpoliticsny.com\/?p=14598"},"modified":"2017-06-02T10:04:59","modified_gmt":"2017-06-02T14:04:59","slug":"a-minimal-burden","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.gunpoliticsny.com\/?p=14598","title":{"rendered":"A minimal burden"},"content":{"rendered":"

The NRA<\/a> lost a California court<\/a> case regarding the imposition of firearms transfer fee:<\/p>\n

“… In a 3-0 decision on Thursday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals<\/a> in San Francisco said the law advanced California\u2019s interest in disarming people who are forbidden from possessing guns and rifles, while imposing only a \u201cminimal\u201d burden on core constitutional rights under the Second Amendment<\/a> …”<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

That this comes out of the 9th Circus does not surprise me.\u00a0 It also builds upon the earlier NYC licensing fee case<\/a> the 2nd Circuit<\/a> ruled was also constitutional.\u00a0 The difference with this one though is that part of the fee goes for law enforcement efforts against illegal purchases.\u00a0 I can see where a court would agree that the state has an interest in preventing prohibited persons from obtaining firearms, but why should the cost be put upon legal purchasers and not the taxpaying public as a whole?<\/p>\n