Are ccw permit fees unconstitutional??

[DonutGuy]

The whole idea of CCW permits is probably unconstitutional. If the government is not to infringe on a person's right to bare (carry) arms, what the heck do you need a government permit for?

You gotta remember that was written a few centuries ago and amendments or meant to be amended. The definition of Amendment is the act of changing for the better. Just because they were written years ago doesn't mean that the government can't change them...Oh wait they already have to some

[BGutzman]

Amending can only be done by a Constitutional Convention, not by act of law. Any law or part of a law in violation of the constitution itself has no force of law and is null in void in every sense. (The nullification could just be the part of law in violation or the whole law as determined by a court)

The problem is congress can make laws so much faster than our court system can review them and the overall effect if a kind of legal chokehold on many freedoms. It is kind of similar to Jury nullification in that the congress nullifies our rights in spite or despite the constitution.

The other two parts of the problem is legal precedence seems to override the plain English meaning of the constitution. One judge taking one bad ruling and using it to justify his or her bad ruling over another related issue. I know this is an over simplification and not true in every case but all too often it is true.

The last of the other two parts is apparently legal language is considered totally separate from common English, this needs to change in regards to the constitution if the common people are to understand the rights they have and not be subject to some doctoral dissertation in legalese.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Bear. Bare means naked arms. You have the right to have naked arms.

Why can the state charge you for a marriage license? Don't you have the right to get married? States that tried to ban miscegenation found they did not have the power to control that - married was seen as fundamental. So why charge for the license?

Does the need to register some basic right give them the right to tax it?

Newspapers pay taxes don't they? Churches don't.

So it's a mess.

[BGutzman]

miscegenation

Glenn, I try hard to be educated in my opinions even if my fingers fail to type what I am thinking the way I am thinking. ie typos galore.

My friend this is the silver dollar word of the week and it is a pleasure to have someone that can bring it to this level. I know this is off thread but, wow... I don't feel intellectually disarmed by many people.

A Virtual toast for you my friend!

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by BGutzman

Amending can only be done by a Constitutional Convention, not by act of law.

Just for the record... that's not the case. From Article V:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress..." (my emphasis)

So Congress may either pass a proposed amendment (by a two-thirds majority) and present it to the states for the required ratification, or it must, if asked to do so by two-thirds of the states, "call a Convention for proposing Amendments" -- which amendments would still have to go through the ratification process.

Although the mechanism exists, there has never been a "Convention for proposing amendments;" all of the amendments to the Constitution, including those in the Bill of Rights, have been passed by Congress and sent to the states for ratification. (In all but one case, the repeal of Prohibition by the 21st Amendment, the ratification has been by way of the state legislatures rather than by means of ratifying conventions held in each state.)

[BGutzman]

I stand corrected.

[spacemanspiff]

Murdoch was a Jehovah's Witness minister solicititing membership in the church

I'm nitpicking a little here, but this particular case you cite was not about 'soliciting membership'. It was about preaching door-to-door offering religious pamphlets/material in exchance for a contribution, that did not buy a person any kind of membership. The contribution goes for the furtherance of evangelizing, not for the personal gain of the minister.

Back on topic, a First Amendment right, deemed as protected in the case you cited, is quite a different cup of tea than the Second Amendment right. The requirements to exercise ones freedom of speech are far less stringent than the requirements to exercise the freedom to keep and bear arms.

Is the government profiting from charging a CCW permit fee? Hardly. Processing an application into the system, performing background checks, materials for producing your permit, are not free. Nor is it cost prohibitive, to my knowledge. A person has the money to buy a handgun, the ammo with which to train and become proficient, adequate clothing, belts, and holsters to conceal the weapon. The cost of the permit most likely averages less than a tenth of what a person may have invested in the gun, holster, and ammo.

How is that infringing?

[Chief Engineer]

For the life of me I can not understand why people still insist on considering the 2nd as a "right" as opposed to a "privlige". A right is absolute, a privlige can be given, and can be taken away.
As long as felons, the mentally ill, drugies, ect. are not permitted to own a firearm, it is indeed a privlige.
To me, the "shall not be infringed" is a joke as long as it is considered a pick and choose proposition.
Do I think a mentally ill murderer with a drug problem should have a firearm? Of course not. He should lose his privlige to do so.

[brickeyee]

The whole idea of CCW permits is probably unconstitutional. If the government is not to infringe on a person's right to bare (carry) arms, what the heck do you need a government permit for?

The carry openly.

Restrictions on carrying concealed predate the Constitution.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by spacemanspiff

Is the government profiting from charging a CCW permit fee? Hardly. Processing an application into the system, performing background checks, materials for producing your permit, are not free. Nor is it cost prohibitive, to my knowledge. A person has the money to buy a handgun, the ammo with which to train and become proficient, adequate clothing, belts, and holsters to conceal the weapon. The cost of the permit most likely averages less than a tenth of what a person may have invested in the gun, holster, and ammo.

How is that infringing?

How is that infringing? I hope you're not serious.

Requiring anything ... anything at all ... before allowing "the People" to exercise a "fundamental" (in the words of Justice Alito, in the McDonald decision) Constitutional right is, by definition, an infringement. If we have a right to keep and bear arms, there's nothing that says we MUST have training, or that we MUST practice by shooting not less than 500 rounds per week, or that we MUST carry ("bear") the weapon in a $100+ horsehide, custom molded holster on an elephant hide gun belt. If all I'm concerned about is having the capacity to defend myself, I can spend $200 on a used pocket pistol and carry it in my pocket. If I live in a state that requires me to take a full-day (or even two-day) class at a cost of a couple of hundred dollars, and then the permit costs another couple of hundred on top of that ... I've easily spent two or three times the cost of the gun and the box of carry ammo.

And for what? So I can "legally" do what the Constitution (supposedly) already guarantees me that I can do.

What if I'm a single parent, unemployed or underemployed and struggling to feed a couple of kids and pay the rent. Poor folks have the same RKBA that rick people like you have, but for poor folks just buying the gun may be a severe strain. Overlaying a bunch of requirements (with dollar signs attached) may effectively prevent many people from being able to (legally) keep and bear arms.

You don't see that as an infringement?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by brickeyee

Restrictions on carrying concealed predate the Constitution.

Citation, please ...

[spacemanspiff]

You don't see that as an infringement?

No, I don't. Cry me a river about the poor, unemployed, underemployed, single parents. Like I said, the government is NOT MAKING MONEY off the fees. It covers the administrative costs.
Not an infringment, not unconstitutional.

[BGutzman]

If they werent tracking all this stuff there would be no need for administation.

The government has no constitutional guarntee that it has the power to do absolutely anything it wants, it has limits and thus the constitution limits it. no matter how congress may try to nullify it.

[chasep255]

I suppose that the fees violate the constitution but I would zoom out a bit and see what else is unconstitutional here. Its the right to keep and bear arms... right. This being said should you really even need a permit to exercise a right? A permit implies permission and/or a privilege. Carrying is a right and therefore neither of the two. This is my logic which I doubt would hold up in court.

[Al Norris]

Just a reminder... Not all states charge the same. In some states, the fees and training requirements cost as much or more than the firearm itself.

Assuming that concealed carry is the only method by which the State allows one to bear arms, is in and of itself, an unreasonable prior restraint.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by spacemanspiff

No, I don't. Cry me a river about the poor, unemployed, underemployed, single parents. Like I said, the government is NOT MAKING MONEY off the fees. It covers the administrative costs.

Whether or not the government is making a profit is immaterial to whether or not requiring a license to engage in a fundamental right is an infringement of that right. How do you justify that potentially making it impossible for entire segments of the population to exercise the RKBA is not an infringement just because the government isn't making a profit?

Profit or no, people are still deprived of a fundamental right. That -- to me -- is infringement.

[kozak6]

Just how large a part of the population is that?

I'm not personally convinced that a ccw permit fee is unconstitutional as long as it's "reasonable". There are still costs that need to be covered.

However, if all that poll tax business is a valid precedent, you could have a very good argument that such a ccw permit fee is indeed unconstitional.

[NWCP]

I have no problem with paying a fee for my CPL. As stated before background checks are required to ensure that no felons, unsavory, or whacked out individuals obtain a carry permit. The fee covers my background check. Fair enough in my way of thinking. The shame is that not all states have a shall issue policy. That's the real problem and what has my skivvies in a bunch. That's the real breach of the second amendment. That and a serious lack of reciprocity between states. My Washington CPL should be honored in any state just as my drivers license is.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by NWCP

As stated before background checks are required to ensure that no felons, unsavory, or whacked out individuals obtain a carry permit.

I think the real issue here is that the concept of requiring permits or licenses to carry is, itself, unconstitutional. The government is not supposed to license a fundamental right. Charging a fee for a license to exercise a fundamental right is just adding to the unconstitutionality.

"Shall not be infringed" is supposed to mean "Shall ... not ... be ... infringed." A license/permit requirement is an infringement. A fee for a license/permit is an additional infringement.

[brickeyee]

Citation, please ...

Go read the very antique laws of any number of the original 13 colonies (few of which have any numbering).

[Al Norris]

Epic Fail !!

Originally Posted by Brickeyee

Go read the very antique laws of any number of the original 13 colonies (few of which have any numbering).

In such discussions and/or debates, when you make a claim, and you are called for a cite, it is incumbent upon you to substantiate the claim.

[brickeyee]

Sorry if copies of the laws from Boston in the 1600s are not right at hand.

I spent a lot of time poring over those and Jamestown's laws a few years ago.

Finding old laws is a real PITA.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by brickeyee

Finding old laws is a real PITA.

Agreed. Which is precisely why those who base their arguments on such are expected to be able to substantiate the argument with a link to the law(s) they are relying on.

[Aguila Blanca]

No prohibition in the Massachusetts Body of Liberties (which was essentially the constitution of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, adopted in 1641).

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/masslib.html

However, I acknowledge that the Body of Liberties includes the liberty for towns to enact their own laws.

Hmmm ...

I found this, courtesy of Google: http://www.claytoncramer.com/popular...NewEngland.PDF

It says the following:

Other laws are startling as well, but in another direction. A 1632 statute of Plymouth Colony ordered “that every freeman or other inhabitant of this colony provide for himselfe and each under him able to beare armes a sufficient musket and other serviceable peece for war with bandaleroes and other appurtenances with what speede may be….” By the end of the following May, each person was to own “two pounds of powder and ten pounds of bullets” with a fine of ten shillings per person who was not armed. A March 22, 1630/1 order required that every town within Massachusetts Bay Colony “before the 5th of Aprill nexte” make sure that every person, including servants, “furnished with good & sufficient armes” of a type “allowable by the captain or other officers, those that want & are of abilitie to buy them themselves, others that unable to have them provided by the town….”

Doesn't sound quite as draconian as you would have us believe.

[BlueTrain]

There is no constitutional provision that requires that an amendment be an improvement! But we hope for the best.

Many of the requirements for a carry permit sound awfully similiar to some that regulated voting oh so many years ago, which sometimes included a poll tax. In some places the poll tax was the chief source of income for the local government. So essentially the well-off people ran things and paid for everything. But I couldn't tell you what people thought of the arrangement.

Requiring people to have firearms training (even without reporting to your captain) is rather like requiring someone to be able to satisfactorily explain parts of the contitution, not that anyone here would have trouble with that part. I'm not sure if this comment is coming from my liberal side or my conservative side. I try not to have a radical side.