Cash50 is even closer...SCOTUS...Has a decison on this...but the question is...is this still is based on a "statute"....regarding an admendment to the constitution..?.
The question of course, does the "statute" extend the right.....or regulate it..?
Does any "statute" regulate.....( I know of course it does), but when it is actually a statute toward an admendment to the constitution, does it carry over?...
Is a "right" a right....?....Or does it depend on a "statute" to decide what "right" this is?
I know this is vague, but as LMTD , (I do have a question and would love to have a link on the " sliding scale") is on the right track, for which I am going.
Z
Not sure how much it helps you as vauge as this is however here is the requested info
From: RSMO571.101
10. For processing an application for a certificate of qualification for a concealed carry endorsement pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121, the sheriff in each county shall charge a nonrefundable fee not to exceed one hundred dollars which shall be paid to the treasury of the county to the credit of the sheriff's revolving fund.
11. For processing a renewal for a certificate of qualification for a concealed carry endorsement pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121, the sheriff in each county shall charge a nonrefundable fee not to exceed fifty dollars which shall be paid to the treasury of the county to the credit of the sheriff's revolving fund.
Slidng scale is sort of close, but by and large, most do charge the full 150 bucks, I mean really, it is still the goobernment and they are going to take the max they can if we will put up with it lol. Here is a link to the STATUTE which it most certainly is,
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5710000101.HTM
If you are thinking some how the funding process being held as constitutional it makes the regulation something its not, your flirting with something that never was.
St. Lous's case was not that the CCW law was not legal, it was an attempt to say the 150 was not enough to cover the processing which meant the county would have to lay out funds to preform the duties associated with the license, something the Hancock amendment strictly forbids. They failed as 150 is more than enough funding to cover the cost of the activities according to MO supreme court.
MO 23 specifically defines concealed carry as a regulated activity, 571 makes it a shall issue licensed activity that can not be preempted by localities, CCW is "protected" by statute aka Missouri state law, not the constitution of the US or Missouri.
While many are flirting with the uncle Ted quote of the "2nd amendment is my license to concealed carry" it remains a dangerous route that only folks like uncle Ted can afford to explore. Carry concealed without a license in the state of Missouri and get caught, your going to need a dump truck filled with money to save your freedom and will quite likely lose your rights to touch firearms again in your life.
Do I think that is accurate, yes, fair and what the intent of the founders, no, but I ain't the one whom shall drop the gavel at anyone's hearing and while they have latitude, judges are bound by the statutes and your going down for it without any doubt.
Yes, the AG in Wisconsin said he would not file charges, that is not binding on any DA in any county whom has an anti-agenda and decides to make a name for himself. Heller and McDonald are about $300k from assistance along with about 2.5 years of wait time and a lot of court time.