Any fee on gun ownership, or carrying a gun is a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution.

[2aguy]

Murdock v Pennsylvania. This ruling from the Supreme Court invalidates any fee that states or localities impose on the Right to Bear arms.......time to stop these unConstitutional attempts to prevent Americans from exercising their Right.......

What does this have to do with fees to obtain a license to own or purchase a firearm? The USSC also found, "A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." This means the entire Bill of Rights as opposed to just the First Amendment.

It is similarly unconstitutional to charge a fee to exercise the right to vote, AKA a poll tax. This could well be the reason why states with voter ID laws must provide free identification cards to qualified residents who do not have driver's licenses, as shown by Crawford v. Marion County Election Board.

The racist nature of many gun licensing schemes is meanwhile underscored by an amicus curiae brief filed by the African-American Gun Association (AAGA) against California. "African Americans have been the target of some of the oldest and most odious attempts at forced disarmament[.] ... NAAGA has a strong interest in this case because taxes and fees imposed on the right to keep and bear arms disproportionately affect African Americans,

due to the average lower income and higher rate of poverty in the African-American community." White supremacists once argued openly that this was their intention, and I recall that the complete quote, while it did not use the N-word, did refer to the "son of Ham."

It is a matter of common knowledge that in this state and in several others, the more especially in the Southern states where the negro population is so large, that this cowardly practice of "toting" guns has always been one of the most fruitful sources of crime[.] ... There would be a very decided falling off of killings "in the heat of passion" if a prohibitive tax were laid on the privilege of handling and disposing of revolvers and other small arms, or else that every person purchasing such deadly weapons should be required to register[.] ... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights.

The same went for a Virginia poll tax on the right to vote.

Discrimination! Why, that is precisely what we propose; that, exactly, is what this Convention was elected for — to discriminate to the very extremity of permissible action under the limitations of the Federal Constitution, with a view to the elimination of every negro voter who can be gotten rid of, legally, without materially impairing the numerical strength of the white electorate.

US Supreme Court: Gun Licensing Fees Are Unconstitutional

While I am not an attorney and cannot give formal legal advice, a 1943 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, may give Second Amendment–supporters an overwhelming legal weapon with which to destroy every single firearm ownership ...

www.americanthinker.com

This may also help to strike down the Firearm Owners Identification Card that we have in Illinois......

An Illinois Court Questioned the FOID Card Requirement

More to the point, however, is the brief's citation of Murdock v. Pennsylvania and the phrase "[a]cross constitutional rights, the courts have consistently forbidden the use of special fees and taxes on constitutionally protected conduct to generate general revenue."

Even Illinois's own courts appear to be finding issues with the Firearm Owner Identification Card per Illinois v. Brown. "The circuit court was correct that the FOID card requirement impermissibly infringes on law- abiding persons' rights to bear long arms-in their own homes for self-defense."

The court filing also argues that the FOID card fee violates not just the U.S. Constitution, but also Illinois's own laws: "a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Murdock v Pennsylvania. This ruling from the Supreme Court invalidates any fee that states or localities impose on the Right to Bear arms.......time to stop these unConstitutional attempts to prevent Americans from exercising their Right.......

What does this have to do with fees to obtain a license to own or purchase a firearm? The USSC also found, "A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." This means the entire Bill of Rights as opposed to just the First Amendment.

It is similarly unconstitutional to charge a fee to exercise the right to vote, AKA a poll tax. This could well be the reason why states with voter ID laws must provide free identification cards to qualified residents who do not have driver's licenses, as shown by Crawford v. Marion County Election Board.

The racist nature of many gun licensing schemes is meanwhile underscored by an amicus curiae brief filed by the African-American Gun Association (AAGA) against California. "African Americans have been the target of some of the oldest and most odious attempts at forced disarmament[.] ... NAAGA has a strong interest in this case because taxes and fees imposed on the right to keep and bear arms disproportionately affect African Americans,

due to the average lower income and higher rate of poverty in the African-American community." White supremacists once argued openly that this was their intention, and I recall that the complete quote, while it did not use the N-word, did refer to the "son of Ham."

It is a matter of common knowledge that in this state and in several others, the more especially in the Southern states where the negro population is so large, that this cowardly practice of "toting" guns has always been one of the most fruitful sources of crime[.] ... There would be a very decided falling off of killings "in the heat of passion" if a prohibitive tax were laid on the privilege of handling and disposing of revolvers and other small arms, or else that every person purchasing such deadly weapons should be required to register[.] ... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights.

The same went for a Virginia poll tax on the right to vote.

Discrimination! Why, that is precisely what we propose; that, exactly, is what this Convention was elected for — to discriminate to the very extremity of permissible action under the limitations of the Federal Constitution, with a view to the elimination of every negro voter who can be gotten rid of, legally, without materially impairing the numerical strength of the white electorate.

US Supreme Court: Gun Licensing Fees Are Unconstitutional

While I am not an attorney and cannot give formal legal advice, a 1943 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, may give Second Amendment–supporters an overwhelming legal weapon with which to destroy every single firearm ownership ...

www.americanthinker.com

This may also help to strike down the Firearm Owners Identification Card that we have in Illinois......

An Illinois Court Questioned the FOID Card Requirement

More to the point, however, is the brief's citation of Murdock v. Pennsylvania and the phrase "[a]cross constitutional rights, the courts have consistently forbidden the use of special fees and taxes on constitutionally protected conduct to generate general revenue."

Even Illinois's own courts appear to be finding issues with the Firearm Owner Identification Card per Illinois v. Brown. "The circuit court was correct that the FOID card requirement impermissibly infringes on law- abiding persons' rights to bear long arms-in their own homes for self-defense."

The court filing also argues that the FOID card fee violates not just the U.S. Constitution, but also Illinois's own laws: "a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.

Wrong.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of fees for gun permits and licenses.

The lower courts have upheld firearm-related fees as being perfectly Constitutional.

Until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise, fees for permits and licenses in no manner ‘violate’ the Second Amendment.

 

[jillian]

Murdock v Pennsylvania. This ruling from the Supreme Court invalidates any fee that states or localities impose on the Right to Bear arms.......time to stop these unConstitutional attempts to prevent Americans from exercising their Right.......

What does this have to do with fees to obtain a license to own or purchase a firearm? The USSC also found, "A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." This means the entire Bill of Rights as opposed to just the First Amendment.

It is similarly unconstitutional to charge a fee to exercise the right to vote, AKA a poll tax. This could well be the reason why states with voter ID laws must provide free identification cards to qualified residents who do not have driver's licenses, as shown by Crawford v. Marion County Election Board.

The racist nature of many gun licensing schemes is meanwhile underscored by an amicus curiae brief filed by the African-American Gun Association (AAGA) against California. "African Americans have been the target of some of the oldest and most odious attempts at forced disarmament[.] ... NAAGA has a strong interest in this case because taxes and fees imposed on the right to keep and bear arms disproportionately affect African Americans,

due to the average lower income and higher rate of poverty in the African-American community." White supremacists once argued openly that this was their intention, and I recall that the complete quote, while it did not use the N-word, did refer to the "son of Ham."

It is a matter of common knowledge that in this state and in several others, the more especially in the Southern states where the negro population is so large, that this cowardly practice of "toting" guns has always been one of the most fruitful sources of crime[.] ... There would be a very decided falling off of killings "in the heat of passion" if a prohibitive tax were laid on the privilege of handling and disposing of revolvers and other small arms, or else that every person purchasing such deadly weapons should be required to register[.] ... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights.

The same went for a Virginia poll tax on the right to vote.

Discrimination! Why, that is precisely what we propose; that, exactly, is what this Convention was elected for — to discriminate to the very extremity of permissible action under the limitations of the Federal Constitution, with a view to the elimination of every negro voter who can be gotten rid of, legally, without materially impairing the numerical strength of the white electorate.

US Supreme Court: Gun Licensing Fees Are Unconstitutional

While I am not an attorney and cannot give formal legal advice, a 1943 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, may give Second Amendment–supporters an overwhelming legal weapon with which to destroy every single firearm ownership ...

www.americanthinker.com

This may also help to strike down the Firearm Owners Identification Card that we have in Illinois......

An Illinois Court Questioned the FOID Card Requirement

More to the point, however, is the brief's citation of Murdock v. Pennsylvania and the phrase "[a]cross constitutional rights, the courts have consistently forbidden the use of special fees and taxes on constitutionally protected conduct to generate general revenue."

Even Illinois's own courts appear to be finding issues with the Firearm Owner Identification Card per Illinois v. Brown. "The circuit court was correct that the FOID card requirement impermissibly infringes on law- abiding persons' rights to bear long arms-in their own homes for self-defense."

The court filing also argues that the FOID card fee violates not just the U.S. Constitution, but also Illinois's own laws: "a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.

Thanks for your “opinion”. Luckily it has zero to do with the actual constitution.

loon

 

[airplanemechanic]

Murdock v Pennsylvania. This ruling from the Supreme Court invalidates any fee that states or localities impose on the Right to Bear arms.......time to stop these unConstitutional attempts to prevent Americans from exercising their Right.......

What does this have to do with fees to obtain a license to own or purchase a firearm? The USSC also found, "A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." This means the entire Bill of Rights as opposed to just the First Amendment.

It is similarly unconstitutional to charge a fee to exercise the right to vote, AKA a poll tax. This could well be the reason why states with voter ID laws must provide free identification cards to qualified residents who do not have driver's licenses, as shown by Crawford v. Marion County Election Board.

The racist nature of many gun licensing schemes is meanwhile underscored by an amicus curiae brief filed by the African-American Gun Association (AAGA) against California. "African Americans have been the target of some of the oldest and most odious attempts at forced disarmament[.] ... NAAGA has a strong interest in this case because taxes and fees imposed on the right to keep and bear arms disproportionately affect African Americans,

due to the average lower income and higher rate of poverty in the African-American community." White supremacists once argued openly that this was their intention, and I recall that the complete quote, while it did not use the N-word, did refer to the "son of Ham."

It is a matter of common knowledge that in this state and in several others, the more especially in the Southern states where the negro population is so large, that this cowardly practice of "toting" guns has always been one of the most fruitful sources of crime[.] ... There would be a very decided falling off of killings "in the heat of passion" if a prohibitive tax were laid on the privilege of handling and disposing of revolvers and other small arms, or else that every person purchasing such deadly weapons should be required to register[.] ... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights.

The same went for a Virginia poll tax on the right to vote.

Discrimination! Why, that is precisely what we propose; that, exactly, is what this Convention was elected for — to discriminate to the very extremity of permissible action under the limitations of the Federal Constitution, with a view to the elimination of every negro voter who can be gotten rid of, legally, without materially impairing the numerical strength of the white electorate.

US Supreme Court: Gun Licensing Fees Are Unconstitutional

While I am not an attorney and cannot give formal legal advice, a 1943 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, may give Second Amendment–supporters an overwhelming legal weapon with which to destroy every single firearm ownership ...

www.americanthinker.com

This may also help to strike down the Firearm Owners Identification Card that we have in Illinois......

An Illinois Court Questioned the FOID Card Requirement

More to the point, however, is the brief's citation of Murdock v. Pennsylvania and the phrase "[a]cross constitutional rights, the courts have consistently forbidden the use of special fees and taxes on constitutionally protected conduct to generate general revenue."

Even Illinois's own courts appear to be finding issues with the Firearm Owner Identification Card per Illinois v. Brown. "The circuit court was correct that the FOID card requirement impermissibly infringes on law- abiding persons' rights to bear long arms-in their own homes for self-defense."

The court filing also argues that the FOID card fee violates not just the U.S. Constitution, but also Illinois's own laws: "a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.

Wrong.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of fees for gun permits and licenses.

The lower courts have upheld firearm-related fees as being perfectly Constitutional.

Until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise, fees for permits and licenses in no manner ‘violate’ the Second Amendment.

Ok he provided links and proof. You've got nothing to back up your claims.

I go with him.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Murdock v Pennsylvania. This ruling from the Supreme Court invalidates any fee that states or localities impose on the Right to Bear arms.......time to stop these unConstitutional attempts to prevent Americans from exercising their Right.......

What does this have to do with fees to obtain a license to own or purchase a firearm? The USSC also found, "A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." This means the entire Bill of Rights as opposed to just the First Amendment.

It is similarly unconstitutional to charge a fee to exercise the right to vote, AKA a poll tax. This could well be the reason why states with voter ID laws must provide free identification cards to qualified residents who do not have driver's licenses, as shown by Crawford v. Marion County Election Board.

The racist nature of many gun licensing schemes is meanwhile underscored by an amicus curiae brief filed by the African-American Gun Association (AAGA) against California. "African Americans have been the target of some of the oldest and most odious attempts at forced disarmament[.] ... NAAGA has a strong interest in this case because taxes and fees imposed on the right to keep and bear arms disproportionately affect African Americans,

due to the average lower income and higher rate of poverty in the African-American community." White supremacists once argued openly that this was their intention, and I recall that the complete quote, while it did not use the N-word, did refer to the "son of Ham."

It is a matter of common knowledge that in this state and in several others, the more especially in the Southern states where the negro population is so large, that this cowardly practice of "toting" guns has always been one of the most fruitful sources of crime[.] ... There would be a very decided falling off of killings "in the heat of passion" if a prohibitive tax were laid on the privilege of handling and disposing of revolvers and other small arms, or else that every person purchasing such deadly weapons should be required to register[.] ... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights.

The same went for a Virginia poll tax on the right to vote.

Discrimination! Why, that is precisely what we propose; that, exactly, is what this Convention was elected for — to discriminate to the very extremity of permissible action under the limitations of the Federal Constitution, with a view to the elimination of every negro voter who can be gotten rid of, legally, without materially impairing the numerical strength of the white electorate.

US Supreme Court: Gun Licensing Fees Are Unconstitutional

While I am not an attorney and cannot give formal legal advice, a 1943 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, may give Second Amendment–supporters an overwhelming legal weapon with which to destroy every single firearm ownership ...

www.americanthinker.com

This may also help to strike down the Firearm Owners Identification Card that we have in Illinois......

An Illinois Court Questioned the FOID Card Requirement

More to the point, however, is the brief's citation of Murdock v. Pennsylvania and the phrase "[a]cross constitutional rights, the courts have consistently forbidden the use of special fees and taxes on constitutionally protected conduct to generate general revenue."

Even Illinois's own courts appear to be finding issues with the Firearm Owner Identification Card per Illinois v. Brown. "The circuit court was correct that the FOID card requirement impermissibly infringes on law- abiding persons' rights to bear long arms-in their own homes for self-defense."

The court filing also argues that the FOID card fee violates not just the U.S. Constitution, but also Illinois's own laws: "a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.

Putting the gun fee is like the old Jim Crow Laws... Why do Demoncraps always resort to Jim Crow Laws?

 

[Penelope]

A pro-Trump prophet from Tennessee went on a wild rant during a sermon this weekend, describing modern Christian leaders - particularly those who refuse to tote guns - as "neutered" and "almost homosexual."

Jansen then said that Jesus "was a real man," claiming in the same breath that all the staff at his church carried firearms and were instructed to open fire on "threats" during church service.

"The ushers at my church, they all pack," Jansen said. "If you come to my place and you think about starting something? You're dead. They'll kill you. They'll shoot you because they're going to protect everybody else."

He boasted as well that he had given his armed ushers a license to kill.

"Just make sure you get them, just kill them, just shoot them dead," he said of the guidelines he gave the ushers.

The Global Fire Ministries website lists Jansen as a "best-selling author" and "prophetic guidepost," claiming that he is renowned for his "miracle/healing anointing and prophetic ministry." In 2020, Jansen published a book titled "Trump: The Destiny of God's America". He sells it on the church's website for $16.99.

According to a Newsweek report, Jansen doubled down last month on his prophecy that the Trump presidency would be re-instated in April, calling the January inauguration a "fake inauguration" for "optics and for posture."

"It's a tale of two presidents right now in America - because President Trump has never conceded, he never agreed to anything, never stepped away, never conceded," Jansen said in March, adding that Trump would re-emerge and restore "civil power" in the US.

This followed comments that Jansen made in February, where he said Biden was a fake president, and that there had been a "Red Sea moment... a red tidal wave."

Pro-Trump prophet goes on wild rant, says the modern church is 'almost homosexual' (msn.com)



Chapter 13

Obedience to Authority.[a] 1 Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. 2 Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.

And Peter said the same thing in 1Peter 2:13
--------------------------------
apparently the pastor picks and choses what he wants to use. Most Christians do!!

Welcome to Ok Corral aka Global Fire Ministries .

 

[pknopp]

Murdock v Pennsylvania. This ruling from the Supreme Court invalidates any fee that states or localities impose on the Right to Bear arms.......time to stop these unConstitutional attempts to prevent Americans from exercising their Right.......

What does this have to do with fees to obtain a license to own or purchase a firearm? The USSC also found, "A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." This means the entire Bill of Rights as opposed to just the First Amendment.

It is similarly unconstitutional to charge a fee to exercise the right to vote, AKA a poll tax. This could well be the reason why states with voter ID laws must provide free identification cards to qualified residents who do not have driver's licenses, as shown by Crawford v. Marion County Election Board.

The racist nature of many gun licensing schemes is meanwhile underscored by an amicus curiae brief filed by the African-American Gun Association (AAGA) against California. "African Americans have been the target of some of the oldest and most odious attempts at forced disarmament[.] ... NAAGA has a strong interest in this case because taxes and fees imposed on the right to keep and bear arms disproportionately affect African Americans,

due to the average lower income and higher rate of poverty in the African-American community." White supremacists once argued openly that this was their intention, and I recall that the complete quote, while it did not use the N-word, did refer to the "son of Ham."

It is a matter of common knowledge that in this state and in several others, the more especially in the Southern states where the negro population is so large, that this cowardly practice of "toting" guns has always been one of the most fruitful sources of crime[.] ... There would be a very decided falling off of killings "in the heat of passion" if a prohibitive tax were laid on the privilege of handling and disposing of revolvers and other small arms, or else that every person purchasing such deadly weapons should be required to register[.] ... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights.

The same went for a Virginia poll tax on the right to vote.

Discrimination! Why, that is precisely what we propose; that, exactly, is what this Convention was elected for — to discriminate to the very extremity of permissible action under the limitations of the Federal Constitution, with a view to the elimination of every negro voter who can be gotten rid of, legally, without materially impairing the numerical strength of the white electorate.

US Supreme Court: Gun Licensing Fees Are Unconstitutional

While I am not an attorney and cannot give formal legal advice, a 1943 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, may give Second Amendment–supporters an overwhelming legal weapon with which to destroy every single firearm ownership ...

www.americanthinker.com

This may also help to strike down the Firearm Owners Identification Card that we have in Illinois......

An Illinois Court Questioned the FOID Card Requirement

More to the point, however, is the brief's citation of Murdock v. Pennsylvania and the phrase "[a]cross constitutional rights, the courts have consistently forbidden the use of special fees and taxes on constitutionally protected conduct to generate general revenue."

Even Illinois's own courts appear to be finding issues with the Firearm Owner Identification Card per Illinois v. Brown. "The circuit court was correct that the FOID card requirement impermissibly infringes on law- abiding persons' rights to bear long arms-in their own homes for self-defense."

The court filing also argues that the FOID card fee violates not just the U.S. Constitution, but also Illinois's own laws: "a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.

Wrong.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of fees for gun permits and licenses.

Yes they have. When they ruled that one can't be charged to exercise a constitutionally protected right, that would apply to all of them.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Dick Tiny, you are totally free to join a Well Regulated Militia.

View attachment 479089
Just sign right up.

So an amendment dated 1791 referred to a militia formed in 1824.

Are you that stupid or you play that on TV?

 

[Penelope]

Yes that means a "milita" in the old days, today we have the NG.

 

[Auld Phart]

Yes that means a "milita" in the old days, today we have the NG.

When are you people going to figure out that it is not necessary to belong to a militia to keep/bear arms?

 

[konradv]

Dick Tiny, you are totally free to join a Well Regulated Militia.
View attachment 479089 Just sign right up.

So an amendment dated 1791 referred to a militia formed in 1824?

...and all militias thereafter; that's the point of an amendment.

 

[2aguy]

Murdock v Pennsylvania. This ruling from the Supreme Court invalidates any fee that states or localities impose on the Right to Bear arms.......time to stop these unConstitutional attempts to prevent Americans from exercising their Right.......

What does this have to do with fees to obtain a license to own or purchase a firearm? The USSC also found, "A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." This means the entire Bill of Rights as opposed to just the First Amendment.

It is similarly unconstitutional to charge a fee to exercise the right to vote, AKA a poll tax. This could well be the reason why states with voter ID laws must provide free identification cards to qualified residents who do not have driver's licenses, as shown by Crawford v. Marion County Election Board.

The racist nature of many gun licensing schemes is meanwhile underscored by an amicus curiae brief filed by the African-American Gun Association (AAGA) against California. "African Americans have been the target of some of the oldest and most odious attempts at forced disarmament[.] ... NAAGA has a strong interest in this case because taxes and fees imposed on the right to keep and bear arms disproportionately affect African Americans,

due to the average lower income and higher rate of poverty in the African-American community." White supremacists once argued openly that this was their intention, and I recall that the complete quote, while it did not use the N-word, did refer to the "son of Ham."

It is a matter of common knowledge that in this state and in several others, the more especially in the Southern states where the negro population is so large, that this cowardly practice of "toting" guns has always been one of the most fruitful sources of crime[.] ... There would be a very decided falling off of killings "in the heat of passion" if a prohibitive tax were laid on the privilege of handling and disposing of revolvers and other small arms, or else that every person purchasing such deadly weapons should be required to register[.] ... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights.

The same went for a Virginia poll tax on the right to vote.

Discrimination! Why, that is precisely what we propose; that, exactly, is what this Convention was elected for — to discriminate to the very extremity of permissible action under the limitations of the Federal Constitution, with a view to the elimination of every negro voter who can be gotten rid of, legally, without materially impairing the numerical strength of the white electorate.

US Supreme Court: Gun Licensing Fees Are Unconstitutional

While I am not an attorney and cannot give formal legal advice, a 1943 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, may give Second Amendment–supporters an overwhelming legal weapon with which to destroy every single firearm ownership ...

www.americanthinker.com

This may also help to strike down the Firearm Owners Identification Card that we have in Illinois......

An Illinois Court Questioned the FOID Card Requirement

More to the point, however, is the brief's citation of Murdock v. Pennsylvania and the phrase "[a]cross constitutional rights, the courts have consistently forbidden the use of special fees and taxes on constitutionally protected conduct to generate general revenue."

Even Illinois's own courts appear to be finding issues with the Firearm Owner Identification Card per Illinois v. Brown. "The circuit court was correct that the FOID card requirement impermissibly infringes on law- abiding persons' rights to bear long arms-in their own homes for self-defense."

The court filing also argues that the FOID card fee violates not just the U.S. Constitution, but also Illinois's own laws: "a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.

Wrong.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of fees for gun permits and licenses.

The lower courts have upheld firearm-related fees as being perfectly Constitutional.

Until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise, fees for permits and licenses in no manner ‘violate’ the Second Amendment.

Yes...they did, in Murdock v Pennsylvania.......what part of that do you not understand.....

The USSC also found, "A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." This means the entire Bill of Rights as opposed to just the First Amendment.

 

[2aguy]

A pro-Trump prophet from Tennessee went on a wild rant during a sermon this weekend, describing modern Christian leaders - particularly those who refuse to tote guns - as "neutered" and "almost homosexual."

Jansen then said that Jesus "was a real man," claiming in the same breath that all the staff at his church carried firearms and were instructed to open fire on "threats" during church service.

"The ushers at my church, they all pack," Jansen said. "If you come to my place and you think about starting something? You're dead. They'll kill you. They'll shoot you because they're going to protect everybody else."

He boasted as well that he had given his armed ushers a license to kill.

"Just make sure you get them, just kill them, just shoot them dead," he said of the guidelines he gave the ushers.

The Global Fire Ministries website lists Jansen as a "best-selling author" and "prophetic guidepost," claiming that he is renowned for his "miracle/healing anointing and prophetic ministry." In 2020, Jansen published a book titled "Trump: The Destiny of God's America". He sells it on the church's website for $16.99.

According to a Newsweek report, Jansen doubled down last month on his prophecy that the Trump presidency would be re-instated in April, calling the January inauguration a "fake inauguration" for "optics and for posture."

"It's a tale of two presidents right now in America - because President Trump has never conceded, he never agreed to anything, never stepped away, never conceded," Jansen said in March, adding that Trump would re-emerge and restore "civil power" in the US.

This followed comments that Jansen made in February, where he said Biden was a fake president, and that there had been a "Red Sea moment... a red tidal wave."

Pro-Trump prophet goes on wild rant, says the modern church is 'almost homosexual' (msn.com)



Chapter 13

Obedience to Authority.[a] 1 Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. 2 Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.

And Peter said the same thing in 1Peter 2:13
--------------------------------
apparently the pastor picks and choses what he wants to use. Most Christians do!!

Welcome to Ok Corral aka Global Fire Ministries .

You don't know anything about the O.K. Corral...do you?

 

[westwall]

Murdock v Pennsylvania. This ruling from the Supreme Court invalidates any fee that states or localities impose on the Right to Bear arms.......time to stop these unConstitutional attempts to prevent Americans from exercising their Right.......

What does this have to do with fees to obtain a license to own or purchase a firearm? The USSC also found, "A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." This means the entire Bill of Rights as opposed to just the First Amendment.

It is similarly unconstitutional to charge a fee to exercise the right to vote, AKA a poll tax. This could well be the reason why states with voter ID laws must provide free identification cards to qualified residents who do not have driver's licenses, as shown by Crawford v. Marion County Election Board.

The racist nature of many gun licensing schemes is meanwhile underscored by an amicus curiae brief filed by the African-American Gun Association (AAGA) against California. "African Americans have been the target of some of the oldest and most odious attempts at forced disarmament[.] ... NAAGA has a strong interest in this case because taxes and fees imposed on the right to keep and bear arms disproportionately affect African Americans,

due to the average lower income and higher rate of poverty in the African-American community." White supremacists once argued openly that this was their intention, and I recall that the complete quote, while it did not use the N-word, did refer to the "son of Ham."

It is a matter of common knowledge that in this state and in several others, the more especially in the Southern states where the negro population is so large, that this cowardly practice of "toting" guns has always been one of the most fruitful sources of crime[.] ... There would be a very decided falling off of killings "in the heat of passion" if a prohibitive tax were laid on the privilege of handling and disposing of revolvers and other small arms, or else that every person purchasing such deadly weapons should be required to register[.] ... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights.

The same went for a Virginia poll tax on the right to vote.

Discrimination! Why, that is precisely what we propose; that, exactly, is what this Convention was elected for — to discriminate to the very extremity of permissible action under the limitations of the Federal Constitution, with a view to the elimination of every negro voter who can be gotten rid of, legally, without materially impairing the numerical strength of the white electorate.

US Supreme Court: Gun Licensing Fees Are Unconstitutional

While I am not an attorney and cannot give formal legal advice, a 1943 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, may give Second Amendment–supporters an overwhelming legal weapon with which to destroy every single firearm ownership ...

www.americanthinker.com

This may also help to strike down the Firearm Owners Identification Card that we have in Illinois......

An Illinois Court Questioned the FOID Card Requirement

More to the point, however, is the brief's citation of Murdock v. Pennsylvania and the phrase "[a]cross constitutional rights, the courts have consistently forbidden the use of special fees and taxes on constitutionally protected conduct to generate general revenue."

Even Illinois's own courts appear to be finding issues with the Firearm Owner Identification Card per Illinois v. Brown. "The circuit court was correct that the FOID card requirement impermissibly infringes on law- abiding persons' rights to bear long arms-in their own homes for self-defense."

The court filing also argues that the FOID card fee violates not just the U.S. Constitution, but also Illinois's own laws: "a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.

Wrong.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of fees for gun permits and licenses.

The lower courts have upheld firearm-related fees as being perfectly Constitutional.

Until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise, fees for permits and licenses in no manner ‘violate’ the Second Amendment.

Pseudo intellectual is I think too high a level of appellation for you, I think dishonest moron is more appropriate based on you ignoring a SCOTUS decision that 2Aguy presented.

 

[2aguy]

Murdock v Pennsylvania. This ruling from the Supreme Court invalidates any fee that states or localities impose on the Right to Bear arms.......time to stop these unConstitutional attempts to prevent Americans from exercising their Right.......

What does this have to do with fees to obtain a license to own or purchase a firearm? The USSC also found, "A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." This means the entire Bill of Rights as opposed to just the First Amendment.

It is similarly unconstitutional to charge a fee to exercise the right to vote, AKA a poll tax. This could well be the reason why states with voter ID laws must provide free identification cards to qualified residents who do not have driver's licenses, as shown by Crawford v. Marion County Election Board.

The racist nature of many gun licensing schemes is meanwhile underscored by an amicus curiae brief filed by the African-American Gun Association (AAGA) against California. "African Americans have been the target of some of the oldest and most odious attempts at forced disarmament[.] ... NAAGA has a strong interest in this case because taxes and fees imposed on the right to keep and bear arms disproportionately affect African Americans,

due to the average lower income and higher rate of poverty in the African-American community." White supremacists once argued openly that this was their intention, and I recall that the complete quote, while it did not use the N-word, did refer to the "son of Ham."

It is a matter of common knowledge that in this state and in several others, the more especially in the Southern states where the negro population is so large, that this cowardly practice of "toting" guns has always been one of the most fruitful sources of crime[.] ... There would be a very decided falling off of killings "in the heat of passion" if a prohibitive tax were laid on the privilege of handling and disposing of revolvers and other small arms, or else that every person purchasing such deadly weapons should be required to register[.] ... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights.

The same went for a Virginia poll tax on the right to vote.

Discrimination! Why, that is precisely what we propose; that, exactly, is what this Convention was elected for — to discriminate to the very extremity of permissible action under the limitations of the Federal Constitution, with a view to the elimination of every negro voter who can be gotten rid of, legally, without materially impairing the numerical strength of the white electorate.

US Supreme Court: Gun Licensing Fees Are Unconstitutional

While I am not an attorney and cannot give formal legal advice, a 1943 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, may give Second Amendment–supporters an overwhelming legal weapon with which to destroy every single firearm ownership ...

www.americanthinker.com

This may also help to strike down the Firearm Owners Identification Card that we have in Illinois......

An Illinois Court Questioned the FOID Card Requirement

More to the point, however, is the brief's citation of Murdock v. Pennsylvania and the phrase "[a]cross constitutional rights, the courts have consistently forbidden the use of special fees and taxes on constitutionally protected conduct to generate general revenue."

Even Illinois's own courts appear to be finding issues with the Firearm Owner Identification Card per Illinois v. Brown. "The circuit court was correct that the FOID card requirement impermissibly infringes on law- abiding persons' rights to bear long arms-in their own homes for self-defense."

The court filing also argues that the FOID card fee violates not just the U.S. Constitution, but also Illinois's own laws: "a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.

Wrong.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of fees for gun permits and licenses.

The lower courts have upheld firearm-related fees as being perfectly Constitutional.

Until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise, fees for permits and licenses in no manner ‘violate’ the Second Amendment.

Pseudo intellectual is I think too high a level of appellation for you, I think dishonest moron is more appropriate based on you ignoring a SCOTUS decision that 2Aguy presented.

And before they say...."That's American Thinker, a Right wing site...."


Murdock v Pennsylvania....

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)

 

[westwall]

Murdock v Pennsylvania. This ruling from the Supreme Court invalidates any fee that states or localities impose on the Right to Bear arms.......time to stop these unConstitutional attempts to prevent Americans from exercising their Right.......

What does this have to do with fees to obtain a license to own or purchase a firearm? The USSC also found, "A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." This means the entire Bill of Rights as opposed to just the First Amendment.

It is similarly unconstitutional to charge a fee to exercise the right to vote, AKA a poll tax. This could well be the reason why states with voter ID laws must provide free identification cards to qualified residents who do not have driver's licenses, as shown by Crawford v. Marion County Election Board.

The racist nature of many gun licensing schemes is meanwhile underscored by an amicus curiae brief filed by the African-American Gun Association (AAGA) against California. "African Americans have been the target of some of the oldest and most odious attempts at forced disarmament[.] ... NAAGA has a strong interest in this case because taxes and fees imposed on the right to keep and bear arms disproportionately affect African Americans,

due to the average lower income and higher rate of poverty in the African-American community." White supremacists once argued openly that this was their intention, and I recall that the complete quote, while it did not use the N-word, did refer to the "son of Ham."

It is a matter of common knowledge that in this state and in several others, the more especially in the Southern states where the negro population is so large, that this cowardly practice of "toting" guns has always been one of the most fruitful sources of crime[.] ... There would be a very decided falling off of killings "in the heat of passion" if a prohibitive tax were laid on the privilege of handling and disposing of revolvers and other small arms, or else that every person purchasing such deadly weapons should be required to register[.] ... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights.

The same went for a Virginia poll tax on the right to vote.

Discrimination! Why, that is precisely what we propose; that, exactly, is what this Convention was elected for — to discriminate to the very extremity of permissible action under the limitations of the Federal Constitution, with a view to the elimination of every negro voter who can be gotten rid of, legally, without materially impairing the numerical strength of the white electorate.

US Supreme Court: Gun Licensing Fees Are Unconstitutional

While I am not an attorney and cannot give formal legal advice, a 1943 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, may give Second Amendment–supporters an overwhelming legal weapon with which to destroy every single firearm ownership ...

www.americanthinker.com

This may also help to strike down the Firearm Owners Identification Card that we have in Illinois......

An Illinois Court Questioned the FOID Card Requirement

More to the point, however, is the brief's citation of Murdock v. Pennsylvania and the phrase "[a]cross constitutional rights, the courts have consistently forbidden the use of special fees and taxes on constitutionally protected conduct to generate general revenue."

Even Illinois's own courts appear to be finding issues with the Firearm Owner Identification Card per Illinois v. Brown. "The circuit court was correct that the FOID card requirement impermissibly infringes on law- abiding persons' rights to bear long arms-in their own homes for self-defense."

The court filing also argues that the FOID card fee violates not just the U.S. Constitution, but also Illinois's own laws: "a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.

Wrong.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of fees for gun permits and licenses.

The lower courts have upheld firearm-related fees as being perfectly Constitutional.

Until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise, fees for permits and licenses in no manner ‘violate’ the Second Amendment.

Pseudo intellectual is I think too high a level of appellation for you, I think dishonest moron is more appropriate based on you ignoring a SCOTUS decision that 2Aguy presented.

And before they say...."That's American Thinker, a Right wing site...."


Murdock v Pennsylvania....

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)

Yeah, these idiots, like Clayton, like to think they are clever, but they are nothing more than parrots.

 

[2aguy]

Murdock v Pennsylvania. This ruling from the Supreme Court invalidates any fee that states or localities impose on the Right to Bear arms.......time to stop these unConstitutional attempts to prevent Americans from exercising their Right.......

What does this have to do with fees to obtain a license to own or purchase a firearm? The USSC also found, "A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." This means the entire Bill of Rights as opposed to just the First Amendment.

It is similarly unconstitutional to charge a fee to exercise the right to vote, AKA a poll tax. This could well be the reason why states with voter ID laws must provide free identification cards to qualified residents who do not have driver's licenses, as shown by Crawford v. Marion County Election Board.

The racist nature of many gun licensing schemes is meanwhile underscored by an amicus curiae brief filed by the African-American Gun Association (AAGA) against California. "African Americans have been the target of some of the oldest and most odious attempts at forced disarmament[.] ... NAAGA has a strong interest in this case because taxes and fees imposed on the right to keep and bear arms disproportionately affect African Americans,

due to the average lower income and higher rate of poverty in the African-American community." White supremacists once argued openly that this was their intention, and I recall that the complete quote, while it did not use the N-word, did refer to the "son of Ham."

It is a matter of common knowledge that in this state and in several others, the more especially in the Southern states where the negro population is so large, that this cowardly practice of "toting" guns has always been one of the most fruitful sources of crime[.] ... There would be a very decided falling off of killings "in the heat of passion" if a prohibitive tax were laid on the privilege of handling and disposing of revolvers and other small arms, or else that every person purchasing such deadly weapons should be required to register[.] ... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights.

The same went for a Virginia poll tax on the right to vote.

Discrimination! Why, that is precisely what we propose; that, exactly, is what this Convention was elected for — to discriminate to the very extremity of permissible action under the limitations of the Federal Constitution, with a view to the elimination of every negro voter who can be gotten rid of, legally, without materially impairing the numerical strength of the white electorate.

US Supreme Court: Gun Licensing Fees Are Unconstitutional

While I am not an attorney and cannot give formal legal advice, a 1943 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, may give Second Amendment–supporters an overwhelming legal weapon with which to destroy every single firearm ownership ...

www.americanthinker.com

This may also help to strike down the Firearm Owners Identification Card that we have in Illinois......

An Illinois Court Questioned the FOID Card Requirement

More to the point, however, is the brief's citation of Murdock v. Pennsylvania and the phrase "[a]cross constitutional rights, the courts have consistently forbidden the use of special fees and taxes on constitutionally protected conduct to generate general revenue."

Even Illinois's own courts appear to be finding issues with the Firearm Owner Identification Card per Illinois v. Brown. "The circuit court was correct that the FOID card requirement impermissibly infringes on law- abiding persons' rights to bear long arms-in their own homes for self-defense."

The court filing also argues that the FOID card fee violates not just the U.S. Constitution, but also Illinois's own laws: "a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.

Wrong.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of fees for gun permits and licenses.

The lower courts have upheld firearm-related fees as being perfectly Constitutional.

Until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise, fees for permits and licenses in no manner ‘violate’ the Second Amendment.

Pseudo intellectual is I think too high a level of appellation for you, I think dishonest moron is more appropriate based on you ignoring a SCOTUS decision that 2Aguy presented.

And before they say...."That's American Thinker, a Right wing site...."


Murdock v Pennsylvania....

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)

Yeah, these idiots, like Clayton, like to think they are clever, but they are nothing more than parrots.

See Westwall.....you just posted a Post Hoc Fallacy.....or some other Latin crap Clayton uses endlessly instead of actually making an argument......

 

[whitehall]

The Murdock v. Pa. decision in the early 40's was based on the 1st Amendment that gave those pesky Latter Day evangelists the right to knock on your door without obtaining a license.

 

[d0gbreath]

Putting the gun fee is like the old Jim Crow Laws... Why do Demoncraps always resort to Jim Crow Laws?

I'm pretty darn sure that the CCW renewal fees that I must pay in the state of Texas were initiated by Republicans. amirite?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Putting the gun fee is like the old Jim Crow Laws... Why do Demoncraps always resort to Jim Crow Laws?

I'm pretty darn sure that the CCW renewal fees that I must pay in the state of Texas were initiated by Republicans. amirite?

No, i dont think so. I have received a CCW in Virginia where the fees were $25 for 5 years, the fees were for the processing of documents. Down in Florida the fee was $100 but then again, you dont pay a state tax, so the fees cover the paper work also. I also have a Utah CCW, which is covered in 39 states, but if and when i ever go to New York, i will take my weapon and CCW, and if confronted i will go with the equal protection clause. I know i will win, and it will be a bad day for Democraps.