The citizens this will hurt the most — peaceable citizens of limited means who live in areas most affected by criminal mayhem — will now have a choice if they are unwilling or unable to pay the tribute: Either be “law-abiding” and assume the risks of being unarmed or be “law-defying” and assume the risks of being armed. It will boil down to which criminal gangs they fear most – the private ones or the public ones. [More]
They never tire of advancing themselves by pushing new ways to blame peaceable gun owners for the inevitable actions of those enabled by their edicts.
David,
ReplyDeleteI already posted this comment. But see here, too:
=================================================
Here is the SCOTUS case that ended the Poll Tax:
Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966)
* https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/383/663/
[SNIP]
We have long been mindful that, where fundamental rights and liberties are asserted under the Equal Protection Clause, classifications which might invade or restrain them must be closely scrutinized and carefully confined.
Those principles apply here. For, to repeat, wealth or fee paying has, in our view, no relation to voting qualifications; the right to vote is too precious, too fundamental to be so burdened or conditioned.
Reversed.