|
Just as in the NJ CCW case, the judges are asking if the logic behind the law was nothing more than an attempt at restricting the right, and in this case keeping the poor from owning firearms. A statement from the law that passed in 1947(from the bill's sponsor): Another reason for the institution of this bill is the feeling that a
higher fee, if the City Council considers it wise to impose same, will tend to
discourage a great number of possible applicants who are better off, both as
concerns themselves and the welfare of this City as a whole, without the
possession of fire-arms. In this way the additional fee as well as covering the
costs of investigation, thereby insuring their continued high caliber, would, of
itself, eliminate a certain percentage of applications, principally in that class
where the possession of fire-arms is desired for reasons of bravado and like
dangerous reasons.
|