Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Murdock v. Commonwealth of PA overturned?

  1. #1
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834

    Post imported post

    In Murdock, the USSC specifically stated that no state may charge a license, fee, or tax for a right protected by the US constitution, yet Scalia seems to be saying that a state can actually do that now. Is this correct?

  2. #2
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    Scalia said that in the prayer for relief and oral arguments the defendant said licensing was good enough, so he went no further.

    Registration or licensing does not mean that a state or city can charge fees to the citizen. This will be a huge part of the extremely burdensome requirements that the city of Chicago has for annual registration.

    My prediction is that fees for concealed carry = constitutional and fees for open carry = unconstitutional.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    My prediction is that fees for concealed carry = constitutional and fees for open carry = unconstitutional.
    I think the pooint that DK was trying to make was not about carry modes, but the actuall OWNERSHIP/POSESSION of a firearm in DC. Under current DC law you must register your firearms in oder to remain within the law, but I don't know if there is a fee attached to such a requirement.

    Ill. requires a FOID in order to simply OWN a firearm which requires a $10 processing fee. Now Since DC V Heller established ownership as an individual RIGHT, that fee should go away via Murdock. However the question will inevitably arrise: is the fee on the FOID itself or on the action of PROCESSING the request?

    To the average layperson there is no difference. Under law though there is.

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834

    Post imported post

    Phssthpok wrote:
    I think the pooint that DK was trying to make was not about carry modes, but the actuall OWNERSHIP/POSESSION of a firearm in DC. Under current DC law you must register your firearms in oder to remain within the law, but I don't know if there is a fee attached to such a requirement.
    Actually, that was not the point I was trying to make, however, I certainly didn't think about the facet that you have brought up and it's also an excellent additional issue that should go right along with it. Thank you for bringing it up and including it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    DKSuddeth wrote:
    In Murdock, the USSC specifically stated that no state may charge a license, fee, or tax for a right protected by the US constitution, yet Scalia seems to be saying that a state can actually do that now. Is this correct?
    Iffy situation. Under the Commerce Clause, the Fed charge for a class 3 license. It is a tax under that clause, not on the mere possession of an automatic weapon. States use that excuse, as well. When you pay for a CCW, you are actually paying for reasonable costs incurred, under many state laws--not a fee or a tax. Very messy area, but case law usually supports "reasonable cost" to 'license.'
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •