Unconstitutional to license the right to free speech...religion... guns

[M14 Shooter]

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

Given this holding and the arguments supporting it, what argument is there that a requirement to obtain a license form the state as a condition to the basic exercise of the right to keep and bear arms does not similarly violate the constitution?

 

[Onyx]

 

[2aguy]

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

Given this holding and the arguments supporting it, what argument is there that a requirement to obtain a license form the state as a condition to the basic exercise of the right to keep and bear arms does not similarly violate the constitution?

Thank you for finding this.......I will now steal it.....

 

[there4eyeM]

If responsibility were as widespread as are firearms, there would be no necessity for further action.

 

[jillian]

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

Given this holding and the arguments supporting it, what argument is there that a requirement to obtain a license form the state as a condition to the basic exercise of the right to keep and bear arms does not similarly violate the constitution?

you seem to be confused about the extent of the holding in Murdock. it has zero to do with licensing guns. it has to do with unlawful imposition of fees upon the first amendment. (and hint: even the first amendment has limits...see, metromedia, inc. and FCC v Pacifica).

even the most wingnuttty gun case, heller, written by the most wingnutty judge, scalia, says reasonable regulation is ok. you should probably actually read those three cases.

you're welcome

 

[2aguy]

If responsibility were as widespread as are firearms, there would be no necessity for further action.

We had 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s.......and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997.....in 2016 we now have 357 million guns...and one count puts it over 400 million....and 15 million people carrying guns for self defense...

in that time our gun murder rate went down 49%....and both our fatal and non fatal gun accident rate went down....

So American gun owners are the most responsible gun owners in the World.......

 

[2aguy]

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

Given this holding and the arguments supporting it, what argument is there that a requirement to obtain a license form the state as a condition to the basic exercise of the right to keep and bear arms does not similarly violate the constitution?

you seem to be confused about the extent of the holding in Murdock. it has zero to do with licensing guns. it has to do with unlawful imposition of fees upon the first amendment. (and hint: even the first amendment has limits...see, metromedia, inc. and FCC v Pacifica).

even the most wingnuttty gun case, heller, written by the most wingnutty judge, scalia, says reasonable regulation is ok. you should probably actually read those three cases.

you're welcome

Yes....you nutters see "reasonable regulation" in Heller and truly believe it means you can limit every single aspect of gun ownership to the point it only exists on paper...and you will be within the bounds of Heller.....

 

[M14 Shooter]

you seem to be confused about the extent of the holding in Murdock.

You failed to address the question I asked:

Given this holding and the arguments supporting it, what argument is there that a requirement to obtain a license form the state as a condition to the basic exercise of the right to keep and bear arms does not similarly violate the constitution?

We both know you have no sound response, which is why you avoided answering it in your post.

 

[martybegan]

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

Given this holding and the arguments supporting it, what argument is there that a requirement to obtain a license form the state as a condition to the basic exercise of the right to keep and bear arms does not similarly violate the constitution?

you seem to be confused about the extent of the holding in Murdock. it has zero to do with licensing guns. it has to do with unlawful imposition of fees upon the first amendment. (and hint: even the first amendment has limits...see, metromedia, inc. and FCC v Pacifica).

even the most wingnuttty gun case, heller, written by the most wingnutty judge, scalia, says reasonable regulation is ok. you should probably actually read those three cases.

you're welcome

The issue is some of the regulations are not reasonable. $1000 in fees and a 3-6 month wait period for a home use handgun permit is not reasonable. it creates a de facto ban, nothing more or less.

 

[jillian]

you seem to be confused about the extent of the holding in Murdock.

You failed to address the question I asked:

Given this holding and the arguments supporting it, what argument is there that a requirement to obtain a license form the state as a condition to the basic exercise of the right to keep and bear arms does not similarly violate the constitution?

We both know you have no sound response, which is why you avoided answering it in your post.

I answered the question. you seem confused about the extent of murdock and heller and the fact that your guns aren't a first amendment issue. you are also confused about the fact that your guns aren't religion or speech and not covered by the 1st amendment.

scalia said what he said.... that is as wingnut a decision as you will ever get.

now stop trying to pretend you understand any of this. go back and actually read heller where your winger scalia said reasonable regulation is acceptable.

or does that confuse you?

 

[jillian]

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

Given this holding and the arguments supporting it, what argument is there that a requirement to obtain a license form the state as a condition to the basic exercise of the right to keep and bear arms does not similarly violate the constitution?

you seem to be confused about the extent of the holding in Murdock. it has zero to do with licensing guns. it has to do with unlawful imposition of fees upon the first amendment. (and hint: even the first amendment has limits...see, metromedia, inc. and FCC v Pacifica).

even the most wingnuttty gun case, heller, written by the most wingnutty judge, scalia, says reasonable regulation is ok. you should probably actually read those three cases.

you're welcome

The issue is some of the regulations are not reasonable. $1000 in fees and a 3-6 month wait period for a home use handgun permit is not reasonable. it creates a de facto ban, nothing more or less.

you're confused about what the issues are.

you should go back to trying to pretend that jim crow laws are ok if applied to gays.

 

[M14 Shooter]

you seem to be confused about the extent of the holding in Murdock.

You failed to address the question I asked:

Given this holding and the arguments supporting it, what argument is there that a requirement to obtain a license form the state as a condition to the basic exercise of the right to keep and bear arms does not similarly violate the constitution?

We both know you have no sound response, which is why you avoided answering it in your post.

I answered the question.

This is a lie.
Nowhere in your response do you explain how the arguments in this decision do not and can not also apply to the right to keep and bear arms.
You know this, of course.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Given this holding and the arguments supporting it, what argument is there that a requirement to obtain a license form the state as a condition to the basic exercise of the right to keep and bear arms does not similarly violate the constitution?

False comparison fallacy.

Laws seeking to place limits and restrictions on speech and religion are subject to strict scrutiny, laws regulating firearms are not.

That may change if or when the Supreme Court rules on the Maryland measure currently under review, but licensing requirements are perfectly Constitutional and consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Given this holding and the arguments supporting it, what argument is there that a requirement to obtain a license form the state as a condition to the basic exercise of the right to keep and bear arms does not similarly violate the constitution?

False comparison fallacy.
Laws seeking to place limits and restrictions on speech and religion are subject to strict scrutiny, laws regulating firearms are not.

This is a lie.