Chisel Head
Member
Why anyone would cap a non-current events thread is beyond me.
The following otherwise usefull thread was archived somewhere back in the forum:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=5158490&highlight=german+gun+laws#post5158490
To continue:
Imagine some authority coming over to your house to find out if you are storing your guns according to lawfull procedures and the footing you the bill. One owner challenged this ruling in (what's equivalent to) state court and lost his case on grounds that purchasers of firearms have to comply with local ordinances established by local governments.
If the court were to argue that they must foot him the bill, because all citizens should not have to pay for services which only a percentage of citizens benefit from, then one can argue that food inspections are conducted free of charge to restaurants, even though a percentage of citizens solicit the services of restaurants (not to mention that not all taxpaying citizens can afford the services of restaurants) and not all citizens do. But, still pay taxes of which a certain percentage of revenue is directed to conducting an action of which that particular taxpayer cannot benefit from or does not need.
The gun owner who filed the suit filed on grounds that charging him 50 Euros for a service that's neither authorized, in present gun legislation, to collect for this service nor requested (as if it was in his interest that they do so which would then justify footing him the bill for an otherwise unwanted service), contrary to terms of doing business which would apply when dealing with private businesses
http://www.badische-zeitung.de/sued...uessen-die-kontrollen-bezahlen--49709120.html
Waffenbesitzer müssen die Kontrollen bezahlen
...This Thread is more than 1011 days old, you can't reply to it...
The following otherwise usefull thread was archived somewhere back in the forum:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=5158490&highlight=german+gun+laws#post5158490
To continue:
Imagine some authority coming over to your house to find out if you are storing your guns according to lawfull procedures and the footing you the bill. One owner challenged this ruling in (what's equivalent to) state court and lost his case on grounds that purchasers of firearms have to comply with local ordinances established by local governments.
If the court were to argue that they must foot him the bill, because all citizens should not have to pay for services which only a percentage of citizens benefit from, then one can argue that food inspections are conducted free of charge to restaurants, even though a percentage of citizens solicit the services of restaurants (not to mention that not all taxpaying citizens can afford the services of restaurants) and not all citizens do. But, still pay taxes of which a certain percentage of revenue is directed to conducting an action of which that particular taxpayer cannot benefit from or does not need.
The gun owner who filed the suit filed on grounds that charging him 50 Euros for a service that's neither authorized, in present gun legislation, to collect for this service nor requested (as if it was in his interest that they do so which would then justify footing him the bill for an otherwise unwanted service), contrary to terms of doing business which would apply when dealing with private businesses
http://www.badische-zeitung.de/sued...uessen-die-kontrollen-bezahlen--49709120.html
Waffenbesitzer müssen die Kontrollen bezahlen
STUTTGART (dpa). Waffenbesitzer müssen kommunale Gebühren für unangemeldete Kontrollen bezahlen. Das Stuttgarter Verwaltungsgericht wies die Klage eines Mannes gegen die Stadt Heilbronn ab. Der Kläger, Sportschütze und Besitzer von 38 Lang- und Kurzwaffen, hatte gegen die Stadt geklagt, nachdem diese für eine Überprüfung seines Tresors 50 Euro erhoben hatte. Er argumentierte, die Kommunen seien dazu vom Waffengesetz nicht ermächtigt, und er habe die Überprüfung weder veranlasst noch liege sie in seinem Interesse. Das Gericht entschied, mit dem Kauf einer Waffe sei die zuständige Behörde auch ohne besondere Genehmigung seitens des Besitzers zur Überprüfung berechtigt. (Az.: 5 K 2953/10)