Are ccw permit fees unconstitutional??

spacemanspiff said:
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.
Click to expand...
Whether or not the government is making a profit is immaterial to whether or not requiring a license to engage in a fundamental right is an infringement of that right. How do you justify that potentially making it impossible for entire segments of the population to exercise the RKBA is not an infringement just because the government isn't making a profit?

Profit or no, people are still deprived of a fundamental right. That -- to me -- is infringement.
 
Just how large a part of the population is that?

I'm not personally convinced that a ccw permit fee is unconstitutional as long as it's "reasonable". There are still costs that need to be covered.

However, if all that poll tax business is a valid precedent, you could have a very good argument that such a ccw permit fee is indeed unconstitional.
 
I have no problem with paying a fee for my CPL. As stated before background checks are required to ensure that no felons, unsavory, or whacked out individuals obtain a carry permit. The fee covers my background check. Fair enough in my way of thinking. The shame is that not all states have a shall issue policy. That's the real problem and what has my skivvies in a bunch. ;) That's the real breach of the second amendment. That and a serious lack of reciprocity between states. My Washington CPL should be honored in any state just as my drivers license is.
 
NWCP said:
As stated before background checks are required to ensure that no felons, unsavory, or whacked out individuals obtain a carry permit.
Click to expand...
I think the real issue here is that the concept of requiring permits or licenses to carry is, itself, unconstitutional. The government is not supposed to license a fundamental right. Charging a fee for a license to exercise a fundamental right is just adding to the unconstitutionality.

"Shall not be infringed" is supposed to mean "Shall ... not ... be ... infringed." A license/permit requirement is an infringement. A fee for a license/permit is an additional infringement.
 
Epic Fail !!

Brickeyee said:
Aguila Blanca said:
Brickeyee said:
Restrictions on carrying concealed predate the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Citation, please ...
Click to expand...
Go read the very antique laws of any number of the original 13 colonies (few of which have any numbering).
Click to expand...

In such discussions and/or debates, when you make a claim, and you are called for a cite, it is incumbent upon you to substantiate the claim.
 
Sorry if copies of the laws from Boston in the 1600s are not right at hand.

I spent a lot of time poring over those and Jamestown's laws a few years ago.

Finding old laws is a real PITA.
 
brickeyee said:
Finding old laws is a real PITA.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Which is precisely why those who base their arguments on such are expected to be able to substantiate the argument with a link to the law(s) they are relying on.
 
No prohibition in the Massachusetts Body of Liberties (which was essentially the constitution of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, adopted in 1641).

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/masslib.html

However, I acknowledge that the Body of Liberties includes the liberty for towns to enact their own laws.

Hmmm ...

I found this, courtesy of Google: http://www.claytoncramer.com/popular/GunControlColonialNewEngland.PDF

It says the following:
Other laws are startling as well, but in another direction. A 1632 statute of Plymouth Colony ordered “that every freeman or other inhabitant of this colony provide for himselfe and each under him able to beare armes a sufficient musket and other serviceable peece for war with bandaleroes and other appurtenances with what speede may be….” By the end of the following May, each person was to own “two pounds of powder and ten pounds of bullets” with a fine of ten shillings per person who was not armed. A March 22, 1630/1 order required that every town within Massachusetts Bay Colony “before the 5th of Aprill nexte” make sure that every person, including servants, “furnished with good & sufficient armes” of a type “allowable by the captain or other officers, those that want & are of abilitie to buy them themselves, others that unable to have them provided by the town….”
Click to expand...

Doesn't sound quite as draconian as you would have us believe.
 
There is no constitutional provision that requires that an amendment be an improvement! But we hope for the best.

Many of the requirements for a carry permit sound awfully similiar to some that regulated voting oh so many years ago, which sometimes included a poll tax. In some places the poll tax was the chief source of income for the local government. So essentially the well-off people ran things and paid for everything. But I couldn't tell you what people thought of the arrangement.

Requiring people to have firearms training (even without reporting to your captain) is rather like requiring someone to be able to satisfactorily explain parts of the contitution, not that anyone here would have trouble with that part. I'm not sure if this comment is coming from my liberal side or my conservative side. I try not to have a radical side.
 
In the 1600s Massachusetts Bay colony laws REQUIRED colonists to be armed, even when attending Church.

There were similar laws in quite a few other colonies at the time.

Indians, don't you know.

I don't know when the first prohibitions against concealed carry came about for certain, but I would suspect that it would have been well into the 1800s.

The first law that I've been able to find for Boston specifically regarding firearms that could be seen as an anti law would be in the 1740s when random discharge of firearms inside city limits was prohibited. I cited that in a thread here a few months ago.

But... as far as I know, and I have no truly solid basis for this, there were few, if any laws, prohibiting concealed carry of a firearm prior to the civil war.

Senators and Congressmen frequently carried concealed handguns on the floor of Congress because regional strife was so hot, especially after Preston Brooks beat Charles Sumner almost to death with a cane.
 
Mike Irwin said:
But... as far as I know, and I have no truly solid basis for this, there were few, if any laws, prohibiting concealed carry of a firearm prior to the civil war.
Click to expand...


I'm "sure" that's true... mainly because one of the major purposes of the colonies was freedom. The concept that free people can be restricted virtually without limit at the whim of the government is a very modern idea, from an American perspective.

Back then, they didn't much consider the idea of restricting the activities of otherwise peaceful people, at least in terms of normal day to day activities.
 
Well, actually there were lots of restrictions, and since someone mentioned the Massachusetts Bay Colony, there was only one church you could belong to. That was the whole point of the colony, so they could have the freedom to restrict what church you might attend, which is a convoluted way of saying something but that was the general idea. They even liked people to stay in town, the better to keep watch on folks.

It was similiar in most of the other colonies, the most notable exceptions being Maryland and Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania has the most liberal immigration rules and in Maryland, you could even be Roman Catholic, if you wanted. For people who really wanted freedom as they defined the terms, they moved to the frontier and pretty much did whatever they wanted, same as people today who move to Idaho, or so it seems.
 
I knew someone would mention the state religion... hence the "day to day activities" part.;)

Basically, as a person went about their normal daily routine, there were few restrictions.
 
That's true, Blue Train, but it really doesn't have much at all to do with the question of firearms restrictions.

Oh, and in Maryland? While originally founded by Catholics and based on tolerance of all religions, that didn't last all that long. Protestants took political control of the colony about 50 years after its founding by the Calvert family and turned it into a Protestant theocracy and dramatically restricted the rights of non protestants.
 
Like I said, the government is NOT MAKING MONEY off the fees. It covers the administrative costs.
Click to expand...

I disagree, like stated before all the fees aren't the same across the country, and when was the last time the government did anything for free for everyone? They have to make money, no matter how small or big or else they couldn't offer it. Indiana has a lifetime permit for $125, and I know it doesn't cost that much for a background check,fingerprints and piece of paper. I can go to the State Police and get my background check alone for $15.
 
Perhaps the most comparable "fee" out there right now are assembly/parade fees charged to groups that want to assemble and demonstrate in many municipalities.

These fees, and even the necessity for the permits, have been challenged on Constitutional grounds numerous times over the years, and to the best of my knowledge have generally been found to be both legal and Constitutional.

I think the general finding is that these fees are not injurious to free speech in that they are low enough not to be restrictive.

Court findings might well be different if, instead of charging $25 or $50 for the permit, a municipality might try to charge, say, $5,000, or required lists of protest participants be handed over to the permit office.

Courts have found many times over the years that just because something is a Constitutionally protected right is no bar to some forms of regulation.


Ah, here we go. Cox vs. New Hampshire.

Challenge was brought to a state law requiring a parade permit on public streets. Challenge was based on 14th and First Amendment grounds.

Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the law was a proper exercise of the State's powers and did not violate individuals' Constitutional rights.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/12529/Cox-v-New-Hampshire.html
 
Regarding the Minneapolis Star case, I don't think that says what people want it to say.

The Star challenged the taxing law on the basis that it was being singled out for a special tax because it was, essentially, successful, and as such, by creating a special class, was a violation of the Star's First Amendment rights.

It's very likely that had the tax applied across the board to ALL newspapers in the state it would have been Constitutional.

It's when you start using the law to create special classes that things start to get dicey.

Using the extant example of CCW permit fees, I believe that they would likely be found to be Constitutional because they apply to all applicants equally.

If, however, the fees were structured so that white males paid $100, white females paid $250, blacks paid $750, and hispanics paid $1,500?

That's a Constitutional issue.
 
Americans should not even need permits let alone need to pay for them.

Right to keep and bare arms.

Someone earlier said they dont say where you can keep and bare them, and I completely agree. There is no restriction set forth. It does not say right to keep and bear arms on your property, or in your domicile, or dwelling, or any of that crap.

It says you have the right to keep and bear arms, period.

How about the constitutional issue of someone living in MS having to pay $132 where someone in Pennsylvania pays $50 and its good for five years and someone living in Oklahoma has to pay $75. Isnt that a form of discrimination based on geographic location? Well then W to the T to the F guys and gals, lets push the issue.

They dont apply to all equally.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top