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

[2aguy]

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.

I start threads about the Right to keep and bear arms......if you were intelligent you would understand the difference.

 

[there4eyeM]

They will lose....Fair and reasonable

"O2"s will be asking that sales taxes on firearms be lifted; infringement.

 

[2aguy]

They will lose....Fair and reasonable

"O2"s will be asking that sales taxes on firearms be lifted; infringement.

And they should be lifted....since Seattle and several other cities are trying to tax guns out of their cities...

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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)

Dipshit.....read Murdock v Pennsylvania

I read Murdock years ago when this nonsense made its rounds in the early Bush years, dummy! That case has not a fucking thing to do with Amendment II or exercising one's Constitutional Rights!

In Murdock, those folks trying to vote in "certain areas of the US" were required to PAY FOR THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE attempting to deny their lawful right to vote with the tax payment disguised as a "tax". The matter of these two idiots in Ohio DOES NOT keep them from lawfully buying a pistol or other lawful firearm. It DOES NOT prohibit them from keeping a loaded weapon in their home for protection of their life and property. It doesn't prohibit them from getting a lawful conceal carry permit if they wish. And it doesn't prohibit them from LAWFULLY having a weapon in a vehicle under SPECIFIC conditions established by law.

If those peckerwoods in Ohio want to conceal carry in their vehicle, they should pay the $67 or whatever in Ohio for the bloody permit costs. There are cost involved you A2 Welfare Queen idiot! Do you think other taxpayers should pay for your toys that gratify your warped and twisted libido, so you can enjoy a free permit.

Bottom line is a permit FEE is not a tax. Further and once again for you dumb ass from the first paragraph of Sec. III in DC v. Heller;

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues."

~~ DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER ~~

And remember, Dipstick;

A bloody FEE is not a TAX!

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

In most states, one has to pay for a driving permit.

Is driving a car in the Bill of Rights?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

Well regulated........

 

[RodISHI]

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.

I think there is a ruling on something like this too more recently. The court rule in favor of the guy that fought their requirements (licensing if I recall correctly). Reasonable thinking. Modern society has cars not horses and buggies.

 

[miketx]

They will lose....Fair and reasonable

If the court is ran by an obama traitor you are correct.