Are ccw permit fees unconstitutional??

"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?"

No, it's not.

Issuance of permits is an application of state law, not federal law just as in the Supreme Court decision I cited above the requirement for a parade/assembly permit is a state or municipal requirement.
 
Aside from the disparity in dollar amount on fees, central to any discussion of the constitutionality of carry permits is the fact that, in many states, NO carry is allowed without a permit. This means that a fee is charged in order to exercise a "fundamental" individual right. ("Fundamental" is directly from Justice Alito's ruling in McDonald v. Chicago)

I would hope we can all at least agree that charging a fee to allow the practice of a fundamental, Constitutional right is (or should be) unconstitutional.

I think it is less clear-cut in states (such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, for example) where open carry is legal w/o permit but a permit is required for concealed carry.
 
The basic idea of a federal transfer tax on machine guns when the law was passed was to restrict the sale (or transfer) of machine guns with a high tax. Curiously, the tax is still the same as it was 75 years ago, isn't it?
 
Aguila, that would be my take on such licensing/fee structures.

I don't think we will ever get completely away from that old pesky "public safety" routine/whine. What I do think will eventually happen is that in States where CC is the only method of carry, the fees/licensing will have to be minimally intrusive.
 
"I would hope we can all at least agree that charging a fee to allow the practice of a fundamental, Constitutional right is (or should be) unconstitutional."

Again, the Supreme Court has said that no, charging a fee, even one that covers exercise of a fundamental right (in the case I cited, the fundamental rights are assembly and free speech), is NOT unconstitutional as long as it is not used as a means of damping exercise of that right or applied in an arbitrary fashion.

And to be perfectly honest with you, no I don't agree that such a fee is, or on its face should be unconstitutional -- existence of such fees is consistent with fees and taxes levied by throughout the existence of our Republic, including some established by the same men who Framed the Constitution.
 
One of the basic problems with referring to the writing of the constitution is in assuming that everyone at the convention, even those who signed the final version, was in 100 percent agreement with everything, no more so than imagining that everyone at the time was thinking the same thing, although everyone who really would have disagreed was run off after the revolution.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Then why was the British ship Somerset anchored in Boston Harbor year 1775 and had at the time the city of Boston in lock down. The crown was in the planning and process of disarming the public. So the crown was trying to restrict the colonists. A very old idea!
I know the Sullivan act in NYC was enacted in the early 1900's.
 
"Then why was the British ship Somerset anchored in Boston Harbor year 1775 and had at the time the city of Boston in lock down. The crown was in the planning and process of disarming the public. So the crown was trying to restrict the colonists. A very old idea!"

Gee, I wonder if that might have had anything at all to do with a little non-incident that was kicking off back then...

Had something to do with the American Colonies revolting... And Colonists taking up arms against the Crown...

Nah, the British just decided they wanted to nip the Second Amendment in the butt, I guess.
 
Are CCW permit fees unconstitutional?

From the standpoint of applying Strict Judicial Scrutiny, you really have to ask yourself several questions, in order to fully answer the question.

1. What might be the compelling interest of the State?
2. Is the requirement narrowly (not necessarily the narrowest) tailored to achieve those goals?
3. Is the requirement among the least restrictive means to achieve the ends?

If you can state a compelling interest and can answer yes to the other two questions, then the law is most likely constitutional.

If you stop and think for a moment, Alan Gura and the other attorneys involved in 2A civil litigation, have never once questioned the validity of licensing, registration, or fees. There is a reason for that. That reason has to do with what I wrote, just above.

We are seeing movement where the requirements are so restrictive, that the ordinary person has little to no chance of carrying in any lawful manner.

Eventually, we will see the most iniquitous requirements and fees, challenged and overturned. In States that allow virtually unregulated open carry, their requirements for CC will not be challenged, or if so, will not be defeated.

There are just too many prior court cases*, to challenge the latter. It will be the former that will have to prove that they are fair and fairly applied.


* See, e.g. Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. 154 (1840); State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612 (1840); Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846); State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489 (1850); Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165 (1871); In re Brickey, 70 P. 609 (Idaho 1902); State v. Rosenthal, 55 A. 610 (Vt. 1903); State v. Kerner, 107 S.E. 222 (N.C. 1921); City of Las Vegas v. Moberg, 485 P.2d 737 (N.M. Ct. App. 1971); State v. Delgado, 692 P.2d 210 (Or. 1984); State ex rel. City of Princeton v. Buckner, 377 S.E.2d 139 (W. Va. 1988); Kellogg v. City of Gary, 562 N.E.2d 685 (Ind. 1990).
 
Al Norris: Aguila, actually it is Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Ohio, Vermont, and Wyoming (I probably missed a couple) that don't regulate open carry. In Utah, you must have a CCW to openly carry.
Click to expand...

Actually, that is not correct. You can carry open in Utah WITHOUT a permit, so long as it is two mechanical actions away from firing.
 
OK... Someone is going to have to explain that one to me....

Would that mean something like, 1)Unholster and 2)Rack the slide?

Edited to add: How would that work for a revolver?
 
Last edited:
Two empty chambers before a round, for two pulls. So you can a functional 4 gun from a 6 gun or you get one those SW 8 shoters for a six gun?
 
Al Norris said:
Would that mean something like, 1)Unholster and 2)Rack the slide?
Click to expand...
More like 1) Rack the slide and 2) pull the trigger, according to Opencarry.org:
Summary
Utah allows unlicensed open carry of a firearm that is at least 2 actions from firing. For example, a semi-auto may have a full mag but the chamber must be empty. Permit holder may open carry as well, but their firearms may be fully loaded.​

So, yeah, for a revolver, two trigger pulls would be OK...

But assuming you're carrying a modern, double-action revolver -- one that's safe to carry with all the chambers loaded -- wouldn't you need just one empty chamber, the one that'll be under the hammer after the trigger is pulled for the first time? IOW, pull trigger, hammer falls on empty chamber, pull trigger again, gun goes bang? Or am I missing something?
 
We already have permits that do not require money to have, or keep.
The second is our Constitution and the 2ndA.
The first is simply a God given right to live and not have that life taken, unjustly, by another.
No money required.
As far as CCW laws are concerned, yes, I believe them unconstitutional. For most of the reasons already stated.
 
The underlying "problem" is that slowly, incrementally, over the last two centuries (and particulary rapidly in the last century) we have changed from a society were nearly anything was allowed, unless it was forbidden, to one where many more things are forbidden and many things are allowed only if approved.

One of the problems with permits (and I agree that the concept is a violation of the accepted understanding of the word "infringed") is that they are state laws. Looking at the Federal Constitution and calling all repugnant state laws unconstitutional as a blanket statement is incorrect.

Our nation is a curious dichotomy, with the idea of a strong Federal government, and one set of rules for all on one side, and the issue of state's rights to their own laws and governance on the other.

The original intent of the Founders was not to have the governments of the "several states" to be mearly local administrators of Federal law.

Each state (or commonwealth) has its own constitution. And while these documents generally mirror the federal one, there are differences. And any lawyer or engineer will tell you the devil (or God, depending on their viewpoint) is in the details.

The 2nd Amendment says we have the right to "keep and bear arms" (and please spell bear correctly!;)) while several states say "keep and bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state" (or similar wording). Note the small, seemingly inconsequential difference in the language used. We all understand that the "defense of self and state" is implied in the Fed 2nd Amendment, but it isn't written. And as earlier noted, legal English is NOT the same (anymore) as regular spoken English.

A good example of this is "I pulled up to the stop sign, stopped, looked both ways, and after a minute, pulled out". Now, what you have just told the court is that you waited a full 60 seconds before pulling out. And if it turns out that you did not wait the full 60 seconds, you have lied to the court, and your credability in all things is now questioned. The simple use of the word "minute" instead of of "moment", something done daily by virtually all of us, can open a real can of worms in court.

How then do you think that the language of our laws is any different in a court? What seems clear and unambigous to us can be very different in court (or in the legislatures). Sad, but true.

Yes, we should not have to get prior approval for anything that is a "right", nor should we have to pay for such appoval. I agree. Reality, however, is somewhat different.

I hold that in principle one should not have to proove to the government that one is not a prohibited person. It is their responsibility to proove that you are. And they should pay for it, as well.

And before you start crying about how you shouldn't have to pay for my background check (through taxes), I would suggest that we have the govt use the money (of ours) that it already has, rather than spending it on subsidising someone dropping elephant dung on a picture of the Madonna and calling it art!
 
You have the right to defend your life and liberty, something i think the 2A was crafted towards though not implicitly to protect. Back in the 1770's no one conceal carried, most weapons were long rifles or muskets. A pistol of the day was probably the weapon of last resort. I whole heartedly believe our founding fathers had they known what would have become of our gun laws, would have clearly allowed CCW and Open Carry without any kind of permitting or fee structure. Like many here say, pick your battle. States will fight tooth and nail to protect their revenue streams but it is a worth while fight. While paying $50.00 in one state may be reasonable, paying $500 in my mind is not.
 
"spending it on subsidising someone dropping elephant dung on a picture of the Madonna and calling it art!"

I would gladly send some of my tax dollars to the artist if the elephant were to plop on Madonna herself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top