Reply #66: maybe now [View All]

[iverglas]

You'd like to try reading my explanation of where he said something about subsidizing the costs associated with firearms ownership. The next post in the sequence after the one you replied to. Written for those who are less familiar with economic concepts, which is entirely understandable.

"Where'd he say anything about subsidizing firearms?"

If you do read that other post, maybe you'll be able to answer your own question. Eliminating the fees charged to cover the costs of a service, while still providing the service, = subsidizing. Whether the fees are eliminated (or reduced to a nominal figure) for everyone or just for specific groups.

We subsidize all sorts of things in our societies. School attendance is free; it is subsidized by all taxpayers. We could charge tuition fees for all students in elementary school that would cover all the costs of the school system, or we could charge tuition fees for some students but not others, thereby subsidizing some students but not others. We choose to subsidize all.

There are costs associated with issuing firearms permits. If those costs are not charged back to the person applying for the permit, then they are being subsidized. They are being paid for out of general revenue. The general revenue that comes from everybody's taxes.

I'd rather see my taxes subsidizing schools and housing and stuff like that. I tend to think that most people who can't afford firearms licences would rather see that too.

Subsidizing the acquisition of firearms by eliminating licence fees isn't going to do a damned thing about all those 'root causes of violence'. And yup, neither is imposing tight restrictions on the private possession of firearms.

But my position is that subsidizing the acquisition of firearms will both
(a) exacerbate those root causes by soaking up govt. funds that would otherwise be available to do something about them, and
(b) exacerbate the violence itself by adding more 'tools' for the violence to the mix, i.e. become an additional causal factor in the violence.

Someone else's position would be
(a) that as long as the root causes of violence have not been successfully addressed, people who 'need' firearms for protection from that violence should have their acquisition of firearms subsidized, and
(b) that poor people / people of colour in fact tend to have greater 'need' of that protection at the same time as they have less means available to acquire it.

I understand that position. I both
(a) disagree that anyone 'needs' firearms for that alleged purpose and
(b) say that this 'solution' will worsen the problem of those people, in particular and more than others, since it will worsen the problem and they are more vulnerable to it.


"How is taxing guns in a manner designed to be class discriminatory any different than a poll tax designed to keep poor people from voting?"

To phrase your question as I think it is intended:

How is taxing guns in a manner designed to keep poor people from owning guns any different from a poll tax designed to keep poor people from voting?

First, I'd need evidence that this is what firearms licence fees etc. are intended to do. Of course, "adverse impact discrimination" does not require intention -- it could be enough to show that one group suffers more than another from a measure that is neutral on its face.

But then we'd be going after grocery stores for adverse impact discrimination, because their pricing policies 'discriminate' against poor people. Right? Even if they charge the same prices in every store in the country, poor people are still suffering from "adverse impact discrimination" when the price of caviar puts it out of their reach.

So we really do need to look at what the stated purpose of the measure is, what relationship there is between the stated purpose and the actual effect, and so on. Specifically, I assume that there are costs associated with licence application and issuance and other aspects of the licensing scheme. Should the users not pay those costs, at least to some extent?

Apparently, many would say no: users should no more pay the costs of firearms permit issuance than users should pay the costs of elementary schools. Again, I understand that. And I disagree with it, for the reasons stated.

Apparently, many would say that the fact that firearms possession is a "right" means that it should not be burdened by charging fees for the exercise of that right. To which I would say:

(a) it simply has not been established that there is an autonomous "right" of individuals to own firearms for their own purposes;

(b) even to the extent that there can be said to be a "right" to do that, all rights can be burdened to some degree, and while the onus would be on the govt. to justify this burden like any other, I think that the justification is possible, not to say obvious.

A poll tax unjustifiably burdens the right to vote. In Canada, the Supreme Court has held that denying prisoners in federal and provincial correctional facilities the vote is also an unjustifiable interference with the right to vote, which is indeed a pretty fundamental right. Any measure that interferes with the right to vote must be justified by a pretty high standard, in terms of the relevance and effectiveness of the measure for achieving a legitimate and sufficiently compelling state objective. Very few interferences with the right to vote would stand up to such scrutiny.

Would firearms licence fees stand up to it?

Well, then comes the perennial question: why hasn't the NRA, or some private individual with an interest, ever challenged them?

Could it be that the NRA doesn't care about poor people / people of colour being able to exercise their rights? Could it be that poor people / people of colour do not generally make owning guns a priority or regard current fees as unreasonable?

.