• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

FL Supreme Kourt: No open carry for you!

JamesCanby

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,480
Location
Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
I THINK THAT countryclubjoe IS SAYING, THAT THE STATE OR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO TAX A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT ON ANYONE, THEREFOR A LAW ABIDING PERSON, CANNOT BE MADE TO PAY FOR A LICENSE, FOR THEIR RIGHT TO EXERCISE THEIR 2ND AMENDMENT RITE. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.

No, what Country Club Liberal Joe wrote was "I have been advocating to have the 1947 New Jersey Constitution revised and remove any reference to a Tax" and did not attempt to limit it to a tax that implied paying for a license or for a right to exercise their 2nd Amendment rite (sic).
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
I THINK THAT countryclubjoe IS SAYING, THAT THE STATE OR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO TAX A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT ON ANYONE, THEREFOR A LAW ABIDING PERSON, CANNOT BE MADE TO PAY FOR A LICENSE, FOR THEIR RIGHT TO EXERCISE THEIR 2ND AMENDMENT RITE. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.

Jammer, you are 100% correct... Some folks only see what they want to see, without thinking.. They are wearing bifocals while we have X-ray vision..
My .02

Regards
CCJ
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
No, what Country Club Liberal Joe wrote was "I have been advocating to have the 1947 New Jersey Constitution revised and remove any reference to a Tax" and did not attempt to limit it to a tax that implied paying for a license or for a right to exercise their 2nd Amendment rite (sic).

Simply read State of Pa v Murdock ( 1943)..
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
" States do not have the power to license or tax-- a right guaranteed to the people".. Murdock v Pa (1943)..

I suggest you read the case, than try to form an intelligent thought thereof.. Seems fairly simple to me.

CCJ
 

JamesCanby

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,480
Location
Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
" States do not have the power to license or tax-- a right guaranteed to the people".. Murdock v Pa (1943)..

I suggest you read the case, than try to form an intelligent thought thereof.. Seems fairly simple to me.

CCJ

I suggest you sip a cup of reality and understand that all politics -- and government -- are (or should be) local, with the taxes collected by a county or state being used to provide services to their own jurisdiction. As another poster appropriately pointed out, if only the federal government can collect taxes, what entity in the Federal government will be responsible for employing the local police, firemen and EMTs? What federal entity will create the school local school systems and hire the teachers? What system will the feds use to equitably distribute the tax revenue, or will they implement the philosophy of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs?"

I suspect that you are a basically a socialist that believes in one, national, over-arching federal government that controls everyone, everywhere, perhaps even a believer in a New World Order that comprises one central, worldwide government. You might observe how well that's working out for Venezuela...
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
" States do not have the power to license or tax-- a right guaranteed to the people".. Murdock v Pa (1943)..

I suggest you read the case, than[sic] try to form an intelligent thought thereof.. Seems fairly simple to me.

Joe,
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an ordinance requiring solicitors to purchase a license was an unconstitutional tax on the Jehovah's Witnesses' right to freely exercise their religion.
Justice William O. Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court. The court held that the ordinance was an unconstitutional tax on the Jehovah's Witnesses' right to freely exercise their religion.

If I may, I respectfully suggest you read the case yourself (somewhat more thoroughly than you have apparently) and understand that it settled no matter that Was Not Brought Before the Court.
You can't just parse random words from a court's decision and make them fit your agenda, that's not how things work.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Joe,
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an ordinance requiring solicitors to purchase a license was an unconstitutional tax on the Jehovah's Witnesses' right to freely exercise their religion.
Justice William O. Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court. The court held that the ordinance was an unconstitutional tax on the Jehovah's Witnesses' right to freely exercise their religion.

If I may, I respectfully suggest you read the case yourself (somewhat more thoroughly than you have apparently) and understand that it settled no matter that Was Not Brought Before the Court.
You can't just parse random words from a court's decision and make them fit your agenda, that's not how things work.

No disrespect, but, what part of " States do not have the power to license or tax, a right guaranteed to the people"
do you not understand?.. Please refer to your dictionary, I understand the word " guaranteed" is a fairly big word. However eventually you shall comprehend its meaning.

CCJ
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
I suggest you sip a cup of reality and understand that all politics -- and government -- are (or should be) local, with the taxes collected by a county or state being used to provide services to their own jurisdiction. As another poster appropriately pointed out, if only the federal government can collect taxes, what entity in the Federal government will be responsible for employing the local police, firemen and EMTs? What federal entity will create the school local school systems and hire the teachers? What system will the feds use to equitably distribute the tax revenue, or will they implement the philosophy of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs?"

I suspect that you are a basically a socialist that believes in one, national, over-arching federal government that controls everyone, everywhere, perhaps even a believer in a New World Order that comprises one central, worldwide government. You might observe how well that's working out for Venezuela...

i'm sure we'd get by just fine.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
No disrespect, but, what part of " States do not have the power to license or tax, a right guaranteed to the people" do you not understand?.. Please refer to your dictionary, I understand the word " guaranteed" is a fairly big word. However eventually you shall comprehend its meaning.

I understand it quite well, CCJ, but I'm not the one taking it out of context. I'm sorry you understand 'guaranteed' to be a big word, I hope one day you become more familiar with them.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj

Sorry, Fallschirmjäger, this is not meant as a criticism of you or your post. I have always enjoyed and respected your posts here on OCDO. This is only a question to help me understand this type of thread. What benefit and/or enjoyment do you get from any conversation with people like this? It seems pointless to me and I refuse to lower myself to make any attempt to reason with them. Obviously, you see some value in this type of discussion that I can not find. Can you point me in the direction of that value? I've never seen the sense in attempts at reason with unreasonable people, nor have I ever had any success in convincing them of anything. I no longer try.

What is unreasonable about posting a Supreme Court decision about rights?

Regards
CCJ
 
Top