Why do we pay to have a "license"??

[zekester]

SCOTUS SAYS WE DON'T HAVE TO!!!

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede.../case.html#113

"It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution."



"It is claimed, however, that the ultimate question in determining the constitutionality of this license tax is whether the state has given something for which it can ask a return. That principle has wide applicability. State Tax Commission v. Aldrich, 316 U. S. 174, and cases cited. But it is quite irrelevant here. This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the Federal Constitution"

May get the argument about the 1st, because that is what this case is about....but pretty clear to me.."A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." ."exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the Federal Constitution"

[Oramac]

SCOTUS SAYS WE DON'T HAVE TO!!!

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede.../case.html#113

"It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution."



"It is claimed, however, that the ultimate question in determining the constitutionality of this license tax is whether the state has given something for which it can ask a return. That principle has wide applicability. State Tax Commission v. Aldrich, 316 U. S. 174, and cases cited. But it is quite irrelevant here. This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the Federal Constitution"

May get the argument about the 1st, because that is what this case is about....but pretty clear to me.."A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." ."exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the Federal Constitution"

Sounds like a good one for the NRA and others to tackle. Might be good to contact our reps about it too.

[davidmcbeth]

Sounds like a good one for the NRA and others to tackle. Might be good to contact our reps about it too.

I am already dealing with this issue -- I refused to pay any $$ for a permit to carry....

[Irish.40]

I was wondering why Minnesota residents have to pay $100 to the sheriff
for a PTC?? Our government makes me sick.

[HankT]

That's a very nice find, zekester.

I think you're on to something.

We should get refunds, too.

[sawah]

We pay to have a license because the clerks and PTB are clever enough to make the 'costs' be administration fees. If you're not careful they will pad those fees beyond what the law allows, though. Most places have a 'no charge greater than' clauses if you check.

Just as the police are opposed to eliminating crime (because if they did it would mean they'd have no jobs) without administering administration fees clerks would have nothing to do besides play solitaire on their computers.

[cshoff]

We are "paying to get a license" because, like it or not, carrying a concealed firearm in most states is considered a PRIVILEGE, and NOT a right. Until the SCOTUS rules that the carrying of concealed firearms is a protected individual right under the 2nd Amendment, I wouldn't look for that to change.

[zekester]

If the Federal Constitution guarentees our right to bear arms, and I can see no where where it states concealed or otherwise, the states cannot make it a priviledge and charge you. JMHO

[Redbaron007]

We are "paying to get a license" because, like it or not, carrying a concealed firearm in most states is considered a PRIVILEGE, and NOT a right. Until the SCOTUS rules that the carrying of concealed firearms is a protected individual right under the 2nd Amendment, I wouldn't look for that to change.

You have taken the words right of my mouth.

[PistolPackingMomma]

If the Federal Constitution guarentees our right to bear arms, and I can see no where where it states concealed or otherwise, the states cannot make it a priviledge and charge you. JMHO

I think you'll find most of us here agree with you. The issue lies with those in robes armed with gavels who make additional rulings that the 2A is not enough...and the foxes will never give up the keys to the hen house...

[Festus_Hagen]

If the Federal Constitution guarentees our right to bear arms, and I can see no where where it states concealed or otherwise, the states cannot make it a priviledge and charge you. JMHO

I'm sure most here are in agreement . However, the powers that be aren't. What are ya gonna do ? :/

[Firedawg314]

SCOTUS SAYS WE DON'T HAVE TO!!!

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede.../case.html#113

"It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution."



"It is claimed, however, that the ultimate question in determining the constitutionality of this license tax is whether the state has given something for which it can ask a return. That principle has wide applicability. State Tax Commission v. Aldrich, 316 U. S. 174, and cases cited. But it is quite irrelevant here. This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the Federal Constitution"

May get the argument about the 1st, because that is what this case is about....but pretty clear to me.."A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." ."exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the Federal Constitution"

I know some people think that the "bare arms" mean only to long guns. If so... lets all carry AR's on our backs. But for real... If more police deparements where on the same page as us... there would be no threats from the LEO's. I just hate those who want to suppress our rights to protect ourselves and turn a blind eye towards criminals.

[9026543]

I know some people think that the "bare arms" mean only to long guns. If so... lets all carry AR's on our backs. But for real... If more police deparements where on the same page as us... there would be no threats from the LEO's. I just hate those who want to suppress our rights to protect ourselves and turn a blind eye towards criminals.

I "bare arms" every time I go out unless it is cool outside.

[davidmcbeth]

I think you'll find most of us here agree with you. The issue lies with those in robes armed with gavels who make additional rulings that the 2A is not enough..

I think the issue lies with US, not any gov't official. I carry when ever I want w/o any stinking permit (that they say is required) ... who's to stop me? No one. I am more than willing and able to protect myself from anyone.

[zekester]

"It is only in recent years that the freedoms of the First Amendment have been recognized as among the fundamental personal rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the states."

Didn't Heller and the Chicago ruling do the same for the 2nd?

[cshoff]

If the Federal Constitution guarentees our right to bear arms, and I can see no where where it states concealed or otherwise, the states cannot make it a priviledge and charge you. JMHO

Unfortunately, you are incorrect. Many states, in fact, DO consider a privilege, whether you and I like it or not. Missouri is one of those states. We even spell it out in no uncertain terms in our State Constitution.

[zekester]

Unfortunately, you are incorrect. Many states, in fact, DO consider a privilege, whether you and I like it or not. Missouri is one of those states. We even spell it out in no uncertain terms in our State Constitution.

But the Chicago case ..."The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states."

Just my thinking, but wouldn't this over- rule the State Constitution as it applies to the 14th. Amendment. No?

[cshoff]

But the Chicago case ..."The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states."

Just my thinking, but wouldn't this over- rule the State Constitution as it applies to the 14th. Amendment. No?

Unfortunately, your way of thinking (one that I share) doesn't really matter much. As Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his majority opinion re: the McDonald v. Chicago decision, the Court’s ruling “does not imperil every law regulating firearms.” In other words, the SCOTUS has ruled twice (in both Heller and McDonald), that certain restrictions to the 2nd Amendment are not, necessarily, unconstitutional. It could be years before this all plays out in the courts - if it ever happens at all.

[zekester]

“A person cannot be compelled "to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution." [Footnote 9] Blue Island v. Kozul, 379 Ill. 511, 519, 41 N.E.2d 515”

[cshoff]

“A person cannot be compelled "to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution." [Footnote 9] Blue Island v. Kozul, 379 Ill. 511, 519, 41 N.E.2d 515”

Again, as I alluded to earlier, the court has yet to rule that the carry of a concealed firearm is actually something "freely granted by the Constitution".

[Festus_Hagen]

“A person cannot be compelled "to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution." [Footnote 9] Blue Island v. Kozul, 379 Ill. 511, 519, 41 N.E.2d 515”

You say 'TomAto' , they say 'Tomato' .

[Redbaron007]

“A person cannot be compelled "to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution." [Footnote 9] Blue Island v. Kozul, 379 Ill. 511, 519, 41 N.E.2d 515”

Unfortunately, the SCOTUS disagrees with you.

[Jaysann22]

Again, as I alluded to earlier, the court has yet to rule that the carry of a concealed firearm is actually something "freely granted by the Constitution".

We should all take notice of the ENTIRE text of the Constitution to understand specific texts. The Constitution does not "grant" privileges or rights. The Constitution RECOGNIZES and acknowledges inalienable rights endowed by the creator (natural law)

In other words, the Constitution just recognizes these rights and demands by law the US authorities to also recognize these laws.

A piece of paper doesn't grant to permission or rights. We know as humans that is law. Just as we know it is law not to murder. Whether we agree or not is left to debate but still doesn't negate the fact the natural law exists.

I find it ridiculous we pay and use drivers licenses as the right to transportation has also been confirmed in the Constitution and even recognized in the Supreme Court....

[cshoff]

We should all take notice of the ENTIRE text of the Constitution to understand specific texts. The Constitution does not "grant" privileges or rights. The Constitution RECOGNIZES and acknowledges inalienable rights endowed by the creator (natural law)

In other words, the Constitution just recognizes these rights and demands by law the US authorities to also recognize these laws.

A piece of paper doesn't grant to permission or rights. We know as humans that is law. Just as we know it is law not to murder. Whether we agree or not is left to debate but still doesn't negate the fact the natural law exists.

I find it ridiculous we pay and use drivers licenses as the right to transportation has also been confirmed in the Constitution and even recognized in the Supreme Court....

Somehow, you seem to be missing the point. It's unlikely you will get any argument from any of the folks here. We all agree that the 2nd Amendment simply codifies and protects a right with which we were endowed by our Creator. However, until we have some kind of case law to that effect, the society at large has reserved the right to arrest, prosecute, and imprison those who exercise said right in said manner.

[davidmcbeth]

Somehow, you seem to be missing the point. It's unlikely you will get any argument from any of the folks here. We all agree that the 2nd Amendment simply codifies and protects a right with which we were endowed by our Creator. However, until we have some kind of case law to that effect, the society at large has reserved the right to arrest, prosecute, and imprison those who exercise said right in said manner.

Heck they imprison people whose rights have already been clearly defined ... we live in a fascist society now...