In a similar vein, the need to obtain a permit to protest was upheld in Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, as long as such permits were necessary to ensure the safety of those passerby and protesting, and not to censor the idea.

Held:

“A law subjecting the right of free expression in publicly owned places to the prior restraint of a license, without narrow, objective, and definite standards is unconstitutional, and a person faced with such a law may ignore it and exercise his First Amendment rights.”

Now tell me, aside from the inherent 1A/2A differences of this decision, how has this not been extended to other rights? Why do we allow Jim Crow style laws such as proficiency tests and taxed permits to determine if someone is fit to exercise their rights?

Speaking of Jim Crow, felony disenfranchisement laws were enacted mostly in the 1860s and 1870s; the right for felons to keep and bear arms was stripped in the 60s (maybe in the NFA of 1934 as well, but it’s unclear). Why should people who have ostensibly been through due process, served their time both in and out of a prison—with probation and what not—be denied their rights any longer? Either the prison system works and they’ve been rehabilitated and are safe to be on the streets, or it doesn’t and they shouldn’t be out until it does work. Maybe get rid of for-profit prisons. The burden of dealing with a failed prison system has fallen squarely on the American gun owner through means of gun control and other meaningless expenditures of tax dollars.

Quite honestly, the entire history of disenfranchisement and disarmament has strong catalysts in the movements for racial equality. In 160 years, it’s been exactly one party (excluding Mulford in CA, but still racially motivated) trying to disarm the country. Their stated reasons may have changed, but their endgoals have not.

Nowadays, there really isn’t much difference between the politicians I’m against and the ones who I’m lukewarm to. None of them have even tried to pass through a concession back towards a free society. They’re all fair weather friends in this sense.

I do have mixed feelings on the taxation of ammunition, guns, bows, and other “hunting supplies” through the Pittman-Robertson act. On one hand, don’t tax my rights, but on the other hand, it’s a solid system for the conservation of natural resources and maintenance of public lands.

I guess you could always list your religion as Mandalorian and fight to remove taxes on your holy relics. /s

Sorry to be so long-winded. I’m working on a series of essays right now and it’s all pouring out.