Are ccw permit fees unconstitutional??

A big problem is at various times and places the court system has patiently decided not to follow the constitution and to make its own rules despite language many Americans would agree is not ambiguous.

How do we change this? I don't know...

What I have been told is legal language is so far different from common English that we simply don't understand what we are reading. Is it true? I don't know but some of the most experienced people here in this forum seem to believe this, so maybe it’s true.

What I think is that at times the court including the supreme court has made decisions based only on personal politics of the judges involved and not what the constitutions says, its a huge problem.

The additional complication it seems the SCOTUS has intentionally avoided even taking a stance on various constitutional issues concerning 2A for a very long time when it could have been spelled out long ago. I mean come on this country has been around this long and they only now have ruled we have a right to "handguns" and the other types of arms weren't included or specifically spelled out as not being included under the right... The whole thing is just a bad way to do business.

Finally for myself the only possible fix I can ever see is for a Constitutional Convention to actually spellout what arms we have a right to and for some what specific violations of law are able to take that right away. (Risky at best in todays world of back door deals.)

The system we currently have is just a mess with such a variety of state, federal and local laws its a wonder anyone can do or own much of anything.
 
Last edited:
The bottom line is that until fees and/or permits are finally ruled unconstitutional by a court, they will be continue to be collected and required. And even if they are found unconstitutional by one lower court, they might still be collected and required by places not within the jurisdiction of that court -- at least unless the Supreme Court rules they're unconstitutional.

But if anyone with the time and money wants to challenge one of those laws, the courts are open for business.
 
The Supreme Court disagrees. The basic premise of your post is thus incorrect.
Click to expand...
Very good point. There seems to be a disconnect for some between the way things should be, and the way they simply are.

I agree that the idea of licensing and taxing a right is unconstitutional. Another precedent establishing this is the Minneapolis Star Tribune case. By that logic, taxes on the right to keep and bear arms must also be unacceptable.

However, we've got to get a case before the Court before we can get that established. A challenge on the unconstitutionality of a tax on exercise of the 2nd Amendment will most likely be associated with the NFA, and I think we're a few years away from such a thing being viable.

That said, there's nothing stopping you from challenging it on the state level.
 
The whole idea of CCW permits is probably unconstitutional. If the government is not to infringe on a person's right to bare (carry) arms, what the heck do you need a government permit for?
 
Here in Indiana we can buy a lifetime permit for (I think) $125, which I think is very reasonable since its a one time cost. As far as fees being unconstitutional, I think the fees are there to pay for the job being done. Paper,manpower,background checks, etc isn't free...it does take some man hours to get that done for A LOT of people in each State. At least ( in most states) we can carry our weapons legally whether open or concealed, be thankful for that.
 
The whole idea of CCW permits is probably unconstitutional. If the government is not to infringe on a person's right to bare (carry) arms, what the heck do you need a government permit for?
Click to expand...

You gotta remember that was written a few centuries ago and amendments or meant to be amended. The definition of Amendment is the act of changing for the better. Just because they were written years ago doesn't mean that the government can't change them...Oh wait they already have to some:eek:
 
Amending can only be done by a Constitutional Convention, not by act of law. Any law or part of a law in violation of the constitution itself has no force of law and is null in void in every sense. (The nullification could just be the part of law in violation or the whole law as determined by a court)

The problem is congress can make laws so much faster than our court system can review them and the overall effect if a kind of legal chokehold on many freedoms. It is kind of similar to Jury nullification in that the congress nullifies our rights in spite or despite the constitution.

The other two parts of the problem is legal precedence seems to override the plain English meaning of the constitution. One judge taking one bad ruling and using it to justify his or her bad ruling over another related issue. I know this is an over simplification and not true in every case but all too often it is true.

The last of the other two parts is apparently legal language is considered totally separate from common English, this needs to change in regards to the constitution if the common people are to understand the rights they have and not be subject to some doctoral dissertation in legalese.
 
Bear. Bare means naked arms. You have the right to have naked arms.

Why can the state charge you for a marriage license? Don't you have the right to get married? States that tried to ban miscegenation found they did not have the power to control that - married was seen as fundamental. So why charge for the license?

Does the need to register some basic right give them the right to tax it?

Newspapers pay taxes don't they? Churches don't.

So it's a mess.
 
miscegenation
Click to expand...

Glenn, I try hard to be educated in my opinions even if my fingers fail to type what I am thinking the way I am thinking. ie typos galore.

My friend this is the silver dollar word of the week and it is a pleasure to have someone that can bring it to this level. I know this is off thread but, wow... I don't feel intellectually disarmed by many people.

A Virtual toast for you my friend!
 
BGutzman said:
Amending can only be done by a Constitutional Convention, not by act of law.
Click to expand...
Just for the record... that's not the case. From Article V:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress..." (my emphasis)

So Congress may either pass a proposed amendment (by a two-thirds majority) and present it to the states for the required ratification, or it must, if asked to do so by two-thirds of the states, "call a Convention for proposing Amendments" -- which amendments would still have to go through the ratification process.

Although the mechanism exists, there has never been a "Convention for proposing amendments;" all of the amendments to the Constitution, including those in the Bill of Rights, have been passed by Congress and sent to the states for ratification. (In all but one case, the repeal of Prohibition by the 21st Amendment, the ratification has been by way of the state legislatures rather than by means of ratifying conventions held in each state.)
 
Murdoch was a Jehovah's Witness minister solicititing membership in the church
Click to expand...
I'm nitpicking a little here, but this particular case you cite was not about 'soliciting membership'. It was about preaching door-to-door offering religious pamphlets/material in exchance for a contribution, that did not buy a person any kind of membership. The contribution goes for the furtherance of evangelizing, not for the personal gain of the minister.

Back on topic, a First Amendment right, deemed as protected in the case you cited, is quite a different cup of tea than the Second Amendment right. The requirements to exercise ones freedom of speech are far less stringent than the requirements to exercise the freedom to keep and bear arms.

Is the government profiting from charging a CCW permit fee? Hardly. Processing an application into the system, performing background checks, materials for producing your permit, are not free. Nor is it cost prohibitive, to my knowledge. A person has the money to buy a handgun, the ammo with which to train and become proficient, adequate clothing, belts, and holsters to conceal the weapon. The cost of the permit most likely averages less than a tenth of what a person may have invested in the gun, holster, and ammo.

How is that infringing?
 
For the life of me I can not understand why people still insist on considering the 2nd as a "right" as opposed to a "privlige". A right is absolute, a privlige can be given, and can be taken away.
As long as felons, the mentally ill, drugies, ect. are not permitted to own a firearm, it is indeed a privlige.
To me, the "shall not be infringed" is a joke as long as it is considered a pick and choose proposition.
Do I think a mentally ill murderer with a drug problem should have a firearm? Of course not. He should lose his privlige to do so.
 
The whole idea of CCW permits is probably unconstitutional. If the government is not to infringe on a person's right to bare (carry) arms, what the heck do you need a government permit for?
Click to expand...

The carry openly.

Restrictions on carrying concealed predate the Constitution.
 
spacemanspiff said:
Is the government profiting from charging a CCW permit fee? Hardly. Processing an application into the system, performing background checks, materials for producing your permit, are not free. Nor is it cost prohibitive, to my knowledge. A person has the money to buy a handgun, the ammo with which to train and become proficient, adequate clothing, belts, and holsters to conceal the weapon. The cost of the permit most likely averages less than a tenth of what a person may have invested in the gun, holster, and ammo.

How is that infringing?
Click to expand...
How is that infringing? I hope you're not serious.

Requiring anything ... anything at all ... before allowing "the People" to exercise a "fundamental" (in the words of Justice Alito, in the McDonald decision) Constitutional right is, by definition, an infringement. If we have a right to keep and bear arms, there's nothing that says we MUST have training, or that we MUST practice by shooting not less than 500 rounds per week, or that we MUST carry ("bear") the weapon in a $100+ horsehide, custom molded holster on an elephant hide gun belt. If all I'm concerned about is having the capacity to defend myself, I can spend $200 on a used pocket pistol and carry it in my pocket. If I live in a state that requires me to take a full-day (or even two-day) class at a cost of a couple of hundred dollars, and then the permit costs another couple of hundred on top of that ... I've easily spent two or three times the cost of the gun and the box of carry ammo.

And for what? So I can "legally" do what the Constitution (supposedly) already guarantees me that I can do.

What if I'm a single parent, unemployed or underemployed and struggling to feed a couple of kids and pay the rent. Poor folks have the same RKBA that rick people like you have, but for poor folks just buying the gun may be a severe strain. Overlaying a bunch of requirements (with dollar signs attached) may effectively prevent many people from being able to (legally) keep and bear arms.

You don't see that as an infringement?
 
Last edited:
You don't see that as an infringement?
Click to expand...
No, I don't. Cry me a river about the poor, unemployed, underemployed, single parents. Like I said, the government is NOT MAKING MONEY off the fees. It covers the administrative costs.
Not an infringment, not unconstitutional.
 
If they werent tracking all this stuff there would be no need for administation.

The government has no constitutional guarntee that it has the power to do absolutely anything it wants, it has limits and thus the constitution limits it. no matter how congress may try to nullify it.
 
Last edited:
I suppose that the fees violate the constitution but I would zoom out a bit and see what else is unconstitutional here. Its the right to keep and bear arms... right. This being said should you really even need a permit to exercise a right? A permit implies permission and/or a privilege. Carrying is a right and therefore neither of the two. This is my logic which I doubt would hold up in court.
 
Just a reminder... Not all states charge the same. In some states, the fees and training requirements cost as much or more than the firearm itself.

Assuming that concealed carry is the only method by which the State allows one to bear arms, is in and of itself, an unreasonable prior restraint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top