• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

zekester

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
664
Location
Uvalde, Texas
SCOTUS SAYS WE DON'T HAVE TO!!!

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/105/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"
 
Last edited:

Oramac

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
572
Location
St Louis, Mo
SCOTUS SAYS WE DON'T HAVE TO!!!

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/105/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.
 

Irish.40

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2012
Messages
57
Location
Minnesota
I was wondering why Minnesota residents have to pay $100 to the sheriff
for a PTC?? Our government makes me sick.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
That's a very nice find, zekester.

I think you're on to something.

We should get refunds, too.
 

sawah

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
436
Location
Virginia
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

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
687
Location
, Missouri, USA
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

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
664
Location
Uvalde, Texas
Which is my point

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
 
Last edited:

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
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

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
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

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
490
Location
Jefferson City, Mo., ,
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 ? :/
 
Last edited:

Firedawg314

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2011
Messages
227
Location
Florissant, Mo
SCOTUS SAYS WE DON'T HAVE TO!!!

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/105/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

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
509
Location
Southern MO
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

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
664
Location
Uvalde, Texas
Another part of the ruling..

"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

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
687
Location
, Missouri, USA
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

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
664
Location
Uvalde, Texas
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?
 
Last edited:

cshoff

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
687
Location
, Missouri, USA
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

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
664
Location
Uvalde, Texas
“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

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
687
Location
, Missouri, USA
“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".
 
Top