One of the reasons a lot of taxes are put in place is to discourage certain behavior. Tobacco taxes, for example, are meant to get people to not smoke. I'm pretty sure income taxes are for the same purpose, but that's just me.

Regardless, we do know that taxing things makes people less likely to engage in certain behaviors. That's why poll taxes are so problematic and are unconstitutional. You shouldn't be required to pay a tax in order to exercise your rights.

But that's not stopping New Jersey, which is looking to make residents pay to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

Murphy’s budget, presented in late February, includes a two-pronged approach targeting gun owners: a 2.5% excise tax on all firearm sales and a 10% tax on ammunition purchases.

That’s okay. You can go to Pennsylvania and buy it in bulk.

Additionally, the plan calls for significant hikes in fees for firearm purchaser identification (FID) cards and related permits.

For example, the cost of an FID card, currently $5, would jump to $100, while handgun carry permits could rise from $50 to as much as $400. The administration estimates these measures could bring in upwards of $9 million annually, funds [New Jersey Gov. Phil] Murphy says will support law enforcement, mental health services, and efforts to combat gun violence.

“This is about keeping our communities safe and ensuring that those who choose to exercise their Second Amendment rights contribute to the broader public good,” Murphy said during a press conference in Trenton. “The fees haven’t been updated in decades, and it’s time we align them with the realities of today.”

But why should they be raised at all?

Just because the times have changed, that doesn't mean the fee required to exercise a fundamental, constitutionally protected right should go up for no reason at all. Murphy's excuse here is basically that they need to raise the feels just because.

That's a terrible argument, to be sure.

Let's understand what this is really about. This is about discouraging lawful gun ownership in the Garden State. It's about making it difficult for law-abiding people to get guns, to make it so costly many will opt to not bother in the first place. It's not about making "communities safe" in any way as the criminals aren't getting these licenses in the first place.

Then we have this supposed requirement that "Those who choose to exercise their Second Amendment rights contribute to the broader public good." Would he try to push this with people who exercise their First Amendment rights to speak freely or worship as they please? Would he try this with people who expect the police to present a warrant before barging into their home to conduct a search?

Why is it that gun owners are expected to "contribute" in such a way when no one else is asked to do any such thing while exercising their rights?

This is nothing but a way to try and keep people from exercising their rights in the first place. I wish Murphy had the cajones to actually acknowledge that fact, but he doesn't. He knows people like me would eviscerate him for it, so he hides behind this nonsense.

Well, it's pretty plain what he's trying to do here, and I find it absolutely disgusting. He can't leave office fast enough, though I doubt his successor will be much better unless something gets very wonky in New Jersey.