2 Citizens sue Ohio because the state charges a fee to get a gun permit. Murdock v Pennsylvania...

2aguy

Diamond Member
Jul 19, 2014
111,834
52,098
2,290
These two citizens are taking this case to court....you cannot charge a fee for the exercise of a Right......and charging money to get a concealed carry permit violates the 2nd amendment Right to own and carry a gun.....as per D.C. v Heller, and in particular Murdock v Pennsylvania......if the court follows the law, they will have to end the fee...

Two Ohioans Sue Over State's Concealed Handgun License Fee - The Truth About Guns

harles Jarvis is confined to a wheelchair and, according to the complaint, qualifies for Social Security and lives in poverty. Both attempted to apply for concealed carry licenses but were told by the Hamilton County Sheriff’s office that they have to pay a fee. Only current and retired law enforcement officers can get one at no cost.

Their suit argues that under the provisions of Heller v. DC, they have an individual right to possess and carry firearms. And as their attorney noted . . .

“(T)he state cannot charge a fee to exercise a fundamental right.”

“There is no alternative but to pay the fee to exercise that right in a private automobile. Thus the imposition of the fee is unconstitutional,” he said.

Government entities nationwide charge fees to process concealed carrylicenses. Those fees impact the poor disproportionately and could probably the basis for a challenge if set unreasonably high (whatever that may mean is open to interpretation and, possibly, judicial review.
 
These two citizens are taking this case to court....you cannot charge a fee for the exercise of a Right......and charging money to get a concealed carry permit violates the 2nd amendment Right to own and carry a gun.....as per D.C. v Heller, and in particular Murdock v Pennsylvania......if the court follows the law, they will have to end the fee...

Two Ohioans Sue Over State's Concealed Handgun License Fee - The Truth About Guns

harles Jarvis is confined to a wheelchair and, according to the complaint, qualifies for Social Security and lives in poverty. Both attempted to apply for concealed carry licenses but were told by the Hamilton County Sheriff’s office that they have to pay a fee. Only current and retired law enforcement officers can get one at no cost.

Their suit argues that under the provisions of Heller v. DC, they have an individual right to possess and carry firearms. And as their attorney noted . . .

“(T)he state cannot charge a fee to exercise a fundamental right.”

“There is no alternative but to pay the fee to exercise that right in a private automobile. Thus the imposition of the fee is unconstitutional,” he said.

Government entities nationwide charge fees to process concealed carrylicenses. Those fees impact the poor disproportionately and could probably the basis for a challenge if set unreasonably high (whatever that may mean is open to interpretation and, possibly, judicial review.
Poor little NRA ijit is going to lose.
 
:boo_hoo14:
In most states, one has to pay for a driving permit. Next, you'll expect states to give you money for buying a gun.
Now go back and fellate your gun.


What you fail to understand is that you cannot charge a fee for the exercise of a Right.....so when the democrats used Poll Taxes.... a fee to vote.... to keep blacks from voting, that was unConstitutional......and it was stopped. Owning and carrying a gun is a Right, so you can't charge fees to exercise that Right....driving isn't a Right.....

And you are getting sexually stimulated by talk about guns....you should get help before you really hurt yourself....
 
These two citizens are taking this case to court....you cannot charge a fee for the exercise of a Right......and charging money to get a concealed carry permit violates the 2nd amendment Right to own and carry a gun.....as per D.C. v Heller, and in particular Murdock v Pennsylvania......if the court follows the law, they will have to end the fee...

Two Ohioans Sue Over State's Concealed Handgun License Fee - The Truth About Guns

harles Jarvis is confined to a wheelchair and, according to the complaint, qualifies for Social Security and lives in poverty. Both attempted to apply for concealed carry licenses but were told by the Hamilton County Sheriff’s office that they have to pay a fee. Only current and retired law enforcement officers can get one at no cost.

Their suit argues that under the provisions of Heller v. DC, they have an individual right to possess and carry firearms. And as their attorney noted . . .

“(T)he state cannot charge a fee to exercise a fundamental right.”

“There is no alternative but to pay the fee to exercise that right in a private automobile. Thus the imposition of the fee is unconstitutional,” he said.

Government entities nationwide charge fees to process concealed carrylicenses. Those fees impact the poor disproportionately and could probably the basis for a challenge if set unreasonably high (whatever that may mean is open to interpretation and, possibly, judicial review.
Poor little NRA ijit is going to lose.







Actually, I think they have a compelling case. Case Law i think supports them as well. Do you have an example of where a Right has been allowed to be taxed jillian?
 
These two citizens are taking this case to court....you cannot charge a fee for the exercise of a Right......and charging money to get a concealed carry permit violates the 2nd amendment Right to own and carry a gun.....as per D.C. v Heller, and in particular Murdock v Pennsylvania......if the court follows the law, they will have to end the fee...

Two Ohioans Sue Over State's Concealed Handgun License Fee - The Truth About Guns

harles Jarvis is confined to a wheelchair and, according to the complaint, qualifies for Social Security and lives in poverty. Both attempted to apply for concealed carry licenses but were told by the Hamilton County Sheriff’s office that they have to pay a fee. Only current and retired law enforcement officers can get one at no cost.

Their suit argues that under the provisions of Heller v. DC, they have an individual right to possess and carry firearms. And as their attorney noted . . .

“(T)he state cannot charge a fee to exercise a fundamental right.”

“There is no alternative but to pay the fee to exercise that right in a private automobile. Thus the imposition of the fee is unconstitutional,” he said.

Government entities nationwide charge fees to process concealed carrylicenses. Those fees impact the poor disproportionately and could probably the basis for a challenge if set unreasonably high (whatever that may mean is open to interpretation and, possibly, judicial review.
Poor little NRA ijit is going to lose.


If Trump appoints 2-3 more Justices to the court, these guys may not lose..........and again, if they do lose, it is because the court is violating their Rights.....and leave it to a dumb ass like you to applaud that...
 
These two citizens are taking this case to court....you cannot charge a fee for the exercise of a Right......and charging money to get a concealed carry permit violates the 2nd amendment Right to own and carry a gun.....as per D.C. v Heller, and in particular Murdock v Pennsylvania......if the court follows the law, they will have to end the fee...

Two Ohioans Sue Over State's Concealed Handgun License Fee - The Truth About Guns

harles Jarvis is confined to a wheelchair and, according to the complaint, qualifies for Social Security and lives in poverty. Both attempted to apply for concealed carry licenses but were told by the Hamilton County Sheriff’s office that they have to pay a fee. Only current and retired law enforcement officers can get one at no cost.

Their suit argues that under the provisions of Heller v. DC, they have an individual right to possess and carry firearms. And as their attorney noted . . .

“(T)he state cannot charge a fee to exercise a fundamental right.”

“There is no alternative but to pay the fee to exercise that right in a private automobile. Thus the imposition of the fee is unconstitutional,” he said.

Government entities nationwide charge fees to process concealed carrylicenses. Those fees impact the poor disproportionately and could probably the basis for a challenge if set unreasonably high (whatever that may mean is open to interpretation and, possibly, judicial review.
Poor little NRA ijit is going to lose.







Actually, I think they have a compelling case. Case Law i think supports them as well. Do you have an example of where a Right has been allowed to be taxed jillian?


Supreme Court Precedent says they win.....

Murdock v. Pennsylvania.....

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Held:
- A municipal ordinance which, as construed and applied, requires religious colporteurs to pay a license tax as a condition to the pursuit of their activities, is invalid under the Federal Constitution as a denial of freedom of speech, press and religion.
- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.
- The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise

Opinion:
...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....

... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down...

... It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise...
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
 
These two citizens are taking this case to court....you cannot charge a fee for the exercise of a Right......and charging money to get a concealed carry permit violates the 2nd amendment Right to own and carry a gun.....as per D.C. v Heller, and in particular Murdock v Pennsylvania......if the court follows the law, they will have to end the fee...

Two Ohioans Sue Over State's Concealed Handgun License Fee - The Truth About Guns

harles Jarvis is confined to a wheelchair and, according to the complaint, qualifies for Social Security and lives in poverty. Both attempted to apply for concealed carry licenses but were told by the Hamilton County Sheriff’s office that they have to pay a fee. Only current and retired law enforcement officers can get one at no cost.

Their suit argues that under the provisions of Heller v. DC, they have an individual right to possess and carry firearms. And as their attorney noted . . .

“(T)he state cannot charge a fee to exercise a fundamental right.”

“There is no alternative but to pay the fee to exercise that right in a private automobile. Thus the imposition of the fee is unconstitutional,” he said.

Government entities nationwide charge fees to process concealed carrylicenses. Those fees impact the poor disproportionately and could probably the basis for a challenge if set unreasonably high (whatever that may mean is open to interpretation and, possibly, judicial review.
Poor little NRA ijit is going to lose.







Actually, I think they have a compelling case. Case Law i think supports them as well. Do you have an example of where a Right has been allowed to be taxed jillian?


Supreme Court Precedent says they win.....

Murdock v. Pennsylvania.....

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Held:
- A municipal ordinance which, as construed and applied, requires religious colporteurs to pay a license tax as a condition to the pursuit of their activities, is invalid under the Federal Constitution as a denial of freedom of speech, press and religion.
- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.
- The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise

Opinion:
...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....

... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down...

... It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise...
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)





Yes, I know. That is what I was referring to.
 
These two citizens are taking this case to court....you cannot charge a fee for the exercise of a Right......and charging money to get a concealed carry permit violates the 2nd amendment Right to own and carry a gun.....as per D.C. v Heller, and in particular Murdock v Pennsylvania......if the court follows the law, they will have to end the fee...

Two Ohioans Sue Over State's Concealed Handgun License Fee - The Truth About Guns

harles Jarvis is confined to a wheelchair and, according to the complaint, qualifies for Social Security and lives in poverty. Both attempted to apply for concealed carry licenses but were told by the Hamilton County Sheriff’s office that they have to pay a fee. Only current and retired law enforcement officers can get one at no cost.

Their suit argues that under the provisions of Heller v. DC, they have an individual right to possess and carry firearms. And as their attorney noted . . .

“(T)he state cannot charge a fee to exercise a fundamental right.”

“There is no alternative but to pay the fee to exercise that right in a private automobile. Thus the imposition of the fee is unconstitutional,” he said.

Government entities nationwide charge fees to process concealed carrylicenses. Those fees impact the poor disproportionately and could probably the basis for a challenge if set unreasonably high (whatever that may mean is open to interpretation and, possibly, judicial review.
Poor little NRA ijit is going to lose.







Actually, I think they have a compelling case. Case Law i think supports them as well. Do you have an example of where a Right has been allowed to be taxed jillian?


Supreme Court Precedent says they win.....

Murdock v. Pennsylvania.....

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Held:
- A municipal ordinance which, as construed and applied, requires religious colporteurs to pay a license tax as a condition to the pursuit of their activities, is invalid under the Federal Constitution as a denial of freedom of speech, press and religion.
- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.
- The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise

Opinion:
...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....

... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down...

... It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise...
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)





Yes, I know. That is what I was referring to.


I know, but you gave me a chance to post it......the more people see it, the harder it becomes to ignore....
 
I hope they win. Charging a fee for a permit is nothing more than a tax.
 
These two citizens are taking this case to court....you cannot charge a fee for the exercise of a Right......and charging money to get a concealed carry permit violates the 2nd amendment Right to own and carry a gun.....as per D.C. v Heller, and in particular Murdock v Pennsylvania......if the court follows the law, they will have to end the fee...

Merely requiring a permit to exercise an explicit Constitutional right is, in itself, a violation.
 
In most states, one has to pay for a driving permit.

Operating a motor vehicle, on public roads, is considered a privilege, not a right. Government has the legitimate authority to impose reasonable conditions on the exercise of that privilege.

Keeping and bearing arms is explicitly affirmed, in the Constitution, as right. Government has no legitimate authority whatsoever to interfere with the legitimate exercise of a right.
 
What you fail to understand is that you cannot charge a fee for the exercise of a Right.....so when the democrats used Poll Taxes.... a fee to vote.... to keep blacks from voting, that was unConstitutional......and it was stopped. Owning and carrying a gun is a Right, so you can't charge fees to exercise that Right....driving isn't a Right.....

And you are getting sexually stimulated by talk about guns....you should get help before you really hurt yourself....

You come up with the some of the most illogical, uninformed packets of bullshit! Where in Amendment II does it read that reasonable fees cannot be charged, or that those fees are forbidden because of X, Y and/or Z?

Now if you read Amendment XXIV, those very reasons are spelled out clearly;
Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


You still don't know what the Hell you're talking about and those two going to court will probably not get very damn far, being equally cerebrally challenged!
 
:boo_hoo14:
In most states, one has to pay for a driving permit. Next, you'll expect states to give you money for buying a gun.
Now go back and fellate your gun.
Fuck face, NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO VEHICLE OWNERSHIP... ITS A PRIVILEGE.
Firearm ownership is an absolute right, till someone fucks it up for them selves.

Pay to vote?
 
:boo_hoo14:
In most states, one has to pay for a driving permit. Next, you'll expect states to give you money for buying a gun.
Now go back and fellate your gun.


What you fail to understand is that you cannot charge a fee for the exercise of a Right.....so when the democrats used Poll Taxes.... a fee to vote.... to keep blacks from voting, that was unConstitutional......and it was stopped. Owning and carrying a gun is a Right, so you can't charge fees to exercise that Right....driving isn't a Right.....

And you are getting sexually stimulated by talk about guns....you should get help before you really hurt yourself....

"And you are getting sexually stimulated by talk about guns....you should get help before you really hurt yourself...."-2aguy
Listen here Mr My Gun is the Most important thing to Me in My Life, I have guns but they sure aren't so important that I am psychologically damaged by any obsession for guns. I have a wife, kids, grandkids, friends, a great job, you get the drift, I have a life.. You start 100's of threads about guns and 10's of thousands of posts about guns. That isn't exactly the sign of good mental wellness by any stretch of imagination.
Get a life, slick.
 
What you fail to understand is that you cannot charge a fee for the exercise of a Right.....so when the democrats used Poll Taxes.... a fee to vote.... to keep blacks from voting, that was unConstitutional......and it was stopped. Owning and carrying a gun is a Right, so you can't charge fees to exercise that Right....driving isn't a Right.....

And you are getting sexually stimulated by talk about guns....you should get help before you really hurt yourself....

You come up with the some of the most illogical, uninformed packets of bullshit! Where in Amendment II does it read that reasonable fees cannot be charged, or that those fees are forbidden because of X, Y and/or Z?

Now if you read Amendment XXIV, those very reasons are spelled out clearly;
Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


You still don't know what the Hell you're talking about and those two going to court will probably not get very damn far, being equally cerebrally challenged!


Dipshit.....read Murdock v Pennsylvania.....it explains it so clearly that even you should be able to get it, if not, find a small child to explain it to you...

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Held:
- A municipal ordinance which, as construed and applied, requires religious colporteurs to pay a license tax as a condition to the pursuit of their activities, is invalid under the Federal Constitution as a denial of freedom of speech, press and religion.
- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.
- The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise

Opinion:

...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....


... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down...
... It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise...
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top