Are ccw permit fees unconstitutional??

JIMSPD9 · February 6, 2011, 04:21 PM

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period. There is no fine print.

That being said, I live in Mississippi where the fee for an original application for ccw permit is $132.00. After a citizen of Ms. Reaches the age of 65 the fee drops to $85.00.

These application/licence fees, which are charged in most states that allow ccw, are in reality a tax levied against a Constitutional right granted to us as Americans. Nothing more or less.

When you purchase a handgun or rifle, we are not charged a fee by the federal government to be cleared for weapons purchase, as non felons, domestic violence convicts, etc, etc. Shouldn't that be enough??

Americans past the age of 60 who are less able to physically defend themselves, are more likely to be on a fixed income, must shell out a fee, in order to legally carry protection. Anyone without a CCW permit, if charged here in Ms. face up to $500.00 fine and possible jail time.

In 1948 the Supreme Court (Murdoch v. Pennsylvania) ruled that a licence fee cannot be levied against a person, in order for that person to exercise his rights, granted under the Constitution, to wit freedom of religion

In this case Murdoch was a Jehovah's Witness minister solicititing membership in the church. The community tried to force him to purchase a licence to solicit in the community.

Since a precedent has already set why are we still paying these taxes, to be safer AMERICANS?

Jim S.

EdInk · February 6, 2011, 04:39 PM

I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, I will even go a step further and say that IMHO even having to have a CCW permit is unconstitutional. It is my belief that any citizen that can lawful own a firearm, should not have that
right restricted in any manner. This includes magazine capacity limits, NFA regulations, FOID cards, CCW permits or other forms of gun control.

JerryM · February 6, 2011, 04:54 PM

No, not unconstitutional. But anyone can be a test case.
Jerry

DonutGuy · February 6, 2011, 04:55 PM

you're talking state vs federal laws which is a can of worms.

mes227 · February 6, 2011, 05:27 PM

"Well trained malitia" gives the feds the right do to a lot more than charge trivial fees! And no serious court is going to rule that such fees are an infringement.

DanWesson357 · February 6, 2011, 07:19 PM

I view it that sometimes you have to pick your battles, no matter how unjust it is. But as explained to me in my CCW class, that "carrying" is not necessarily guaranteed to us anyway. Our right to keep and bear arms is. As to exactly where they can be kept and bared is a whole new can of worms.

As well, my concern isn't that we're being charged for CCW permits when there are still states in the union which have no carry laws, and that there is virtually no carry in many "may issue" states. I say we need to work on that before we worry about a fee that crops up every five years (at least in my state). If I'll fight for anything pertaining to CCW laws, it will be to make every state "shall issue". Nothing less.

We have to face the facts that public opinion is against us. Problem is, not allowing them to go too far. Which is yet again another can of worms. I have the feeling many people here think that registration, permits and background checks are already going too far. But it's like the smoking ban. Michigan became one of 37 states to ban smoking in public places last year. It's a bunch of B.S. for many reasons. The biggest being that bars are mostly frequented by smokers. Business has dropped off due to the fight of the nonsmoker to "free" themselves of the inconvenience of cigarette smoke in an institution they don't even frequent. So for now, I'll take a tax against me and/or the business if it means having a "tobacco tax" to allow us to smoke inside. Is it crap? Yes. Does it interfere with private enterprise? ABSOLUTELY. But it's either this or nothing. I'll take this over the nothing we currently have.

Jim Watson · February 6, 2011, 08:31 PM

Charging for the exercise of a right is unconstitutional.
Look up "poll tax."

**JohnKSa** · February 6, 2011, 09:01 PM

Moved to L&CR.

Brian Pfleuger · February 6, 2011, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mes227

"Well trained malitia"...

That might be true, but the wording in the 2A is "A well REGULATED militia...."

1)"Regulated" is entirely different that "trained", particularly in context with the meaning of the word in the 1790s

2)The "militia" clause has been firmly shot down as the only, and even primary, reason for the 2A

Personally, I don't believe that CCW permit fees are unconstitutional so much as I believe that the permits THEMSELVES are unconstitutional. Background checks are enough. Plenty enough. No further restriction can do ANYTHING to prevent crime. The permits are unconstitutional, the fees are just a kick in the teeth for good measure.

DanWesson357 · February 6, 2011, 09:40 PM

"2)The "militia" clause has been firmly shot down as the only, and even primary, reason for the 2A"

You need to tell that to a lot of people who believe otherwise. I still cringe when I hear someone say that it only refers to militias.

Standing Wolf · February 6, 2011, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Charging for the exercise of a right is unconstitutional.
Look up "poll tax."

Amen! Unfortunately, going to government courts for relief from government infringement of our rights probably isn't going to get the job done.

**Aguila Blanca** · February 6, 2011, 11:40 PM

As In Murdock, I believe permit fees are unconstitutional, IF a permit is the only way you can carry in your state. Some states (such as Ohio and Utah) have state supreme court rulings that say if the state wants to regulate/license concealed carry, open carry has to be legal without any license. That's based on the language of their state constitutions.

In states such as that, you can exercise your constitutional RKBA without a license/permit, so the fee for a concealed carry permit would not be unconstitutional. Conversely, in states such as mine where NO carry is allowed except with a permit, then charging a fee to exercise a Constitutionally-guaranteed right is unconstitutional. It won't be tomorrow or even next week, but I have no doubt that the courts will eventually have to accept this and rule accordingly. It's just going to take the right case.

Al Norris · February 7, 2011, 12:16 AM

Aguila, actually it is Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Ohio, Vermont, and Wyoming (I probably missed a couple) that don't regulate open carry. In Utah, you must have a CCW to openly carry.

Don't rightly know about the other States, but both Idaho and Vermont laws are based upon State Supreme Court cases in the very early 1900's.

Whether or not CCW permit fees are constitutional, is something that will be decided later. Right now, the focus is on getting all the States to acknowledge that you have the right to carry. With or without a permit.

Personally, as long as there is a means to carry, freely and without a state controlled permit, regulation and licensing of other means of carry is a permissible police power.

LDSGJA · February 7, 2011, 12:34 AM

The Supreme court only hears about about 80-150 cases per year - so things like having to shell out $200 for a gun permit aren't a very high priority compared to things like an outright handgun ban in Chicago/DC. Plus since the justices can ignore cases they often avoid issues that they think are too hot/politically charged.

Chances are lots of laws are unconstitutional but I think many politicos tend to look the other way because it makes it difficult to run a modern world power that keeps its citizens tame and well behaved.

Even taxes were unconstitutional until the 16th amendment.

Wildalaska · February 7, 2011, 12:37 AM

Quote:

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period. There is no fine print.

The Supreme Court disagrees. The basic premise of your post is thus incorrect.

WildbutheywhenhasthateverstoppedthesameolddebateAlaska ™©2002-2011

armsmaster270 · February 7, 2011, 01:41 AM

The fees should be reasonable, for record checks. Not all citizens should be permitted to carry or have a weapon such as dangerous felons. Would you want a convicted rapist on the streets with a legal gun?

Vermont allows concealed carry with no license.

m17s_guy · February 7, 2011, 01:46 AM

i have to say as an LEO, that even though i agree with a lot of above posters in the fact that a CCW permit IMHO is unconstitutional, you have to think of it in another way. the background check and accompanying permit deem you a legal carrier of said weapon. so if there IS a background check, then that piece of paper you get is your ability to show the LEO who stopped you at an alcohol check point to know that the pistol under your arm is legal and carried by someone who is allowed to by law. and those people who give the classes, and do the background checks need to be paid for their work just like the teachers who educate our children.

now do i believe that the fees should be so high? NO... do i believe the background checks and certain gun control laws are needed? YES!!!! i dont believe a person with paranoid schizophrenia should be walking around with a gun on their hip, nor should someone who has been convicted of a violent crime. IMHO someone who has committed a violent crime with a weapon should not be allowed to have another, because they have shown intentional disregard for law when they held a deadly weapon. so the background checks ARE important IMO.

DonR101395 · February 7, 2011, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Would you want a convicted rapist on the streets with a legal gun?

Does it really matter if it's a legal gun or not? They have them regardless of what the law says.

On the OP:
IMHO, yes they are unconstitutional, but the SCOTUS hasn't gotten around to asking my opinion.

Buzzcook · February 7, 2011, 02:17 AM

Why should I pay for your permit?
Are you really full of constitutional fervor or are you just a cheapskate looking for a free ride at public expense?

jgcoastie · February 7, 2011, 07:45 AM

Someone has to pay for it... Might as well be the one who's getting the permit...

"There ain't no free lunch, 'cept Jesus."

BGutzman · February 7, 2011, 08:21 AM

A big problem is at various times and places the court system has patiently decided not to follow the constitution and to make its own rules despite language many Americans would agree is not ambiguous.

How do we change this? I don't know...

What I have been told is legal language is so far different from common English that we simply don't understand what we are reading. Is it true? I don't know but some of the most experienced people here in this forum seem to believe this, so maybe it’s true.

What I think is that at times the court including the supreme court has made decisions based only on personal politics of the judges involved and not what the constitutions says, its a huge problem.

The additional complication it seems the SCOTUS has intentionally avoided even taking a stance on various constitutional issues concerning 2A for a very long time when it could have been spelled out long ago. I mean come on this country has been around this long and they only now have ruled we have a right to "handguns" and the other types of arms weren't included or specifically spelled out as not being included under the right... The whole thing is just a bad way to do business.

Finally for myself the only possible fix I can ever see is for a Constitutional Convention to actually spellout what arms we have a right to and for some what specific violations of law are able to take that right away. (Risky at best in todays world of back door deals.)

The system we currently have is just a mess with such a variety of state, federal and local laws its a wonder anyone can do or own much of anything.

**Frank Ettin** · February 7, 2011, 02:15 PM

The bottom line is that until fees and/or permits are finally ruled unconstitutional by a court, they will be continue to be collected and required. And even if they are found unconstitutional by one lower court, they might still be collected and required by places not within the jurisdiction of that court -- at least unless the Supreme Court rules they're unconstitutional.

But if anyone with the time and money wants to challenge one of those laws, the courts are open for business.

**Tom Servo** · February 7, 2011, 03:03 PM

Quote:

The Supreme Court disagrees. The basic premise of your post is thus incorrect.

Very good point. There seems to be a disconnect for some between the way things should be, and the way they simply are.

I agree that the idea of licensing and taxing a right is unconstitutional. Another precedent establishing this is the Minneapolis Star Tribune case. By that logic, taxes on the right to keep and bear arms must also be unacceptable.

However, we've got to get a case before the Court before we can get that established. A challenge on the unconstitutionality of a tax on exercise of the 2nd Amendment will most likely be associated with the NFA, and I think we're a few years away from such a thing being viable.

That said, there's nothing stopping you from challenging it on the state level.

Skans · February 7, 2011, 03:20 PM

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?

DonutGuy · February 7, 2011, 04:23 PM

Here in Indiana we can buy a lifetime permit for (I think) $125, which I think is very reasonable since its a one time cost. As far as fees being unconstitutional, I think the fees are there to pay for the job being done. Paper,manpower,background checks, etc isn't free...it does take some man hours to get that done for A LOT of people in each State. At least ( in most states) we can carry our weapons legally whether open or concealed, be thankful for that.

February 6, 2011, 04:21 PM	#1
JIMSPD9 Member Join Date: August 6, 2010 Posts: 86	Are ccw permit fees unconstitutional?? The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period. There is no fine print. That being said, I live in Mississippi where the fee for an original application for ccw permit is $132.00. After a citizen of Ms. Reaches the age of 65 the fee drops to $85.00. These application/licence fees, which are charged in most states that allow ccw, are in reality a tax levied against a Constitutional right granted to us as Americans. Nothing more or less. When you purchase a handgun or rifle, we are not charged a fee by the federal government to be cleared for weapons purchase, as non felons, domestic violence convicts, etc, etc. Shouldn't that be enough?? Americans past the age of 60 who are less able to physically defend themselves, are more likely to be on a fixed income, must shell out a fee, in order to legally carry protection. Anyone without a CCW permit, if charged here in Ms. face up to $500.00 fine and possible jail time. In 1948 the Supreme Court (Murdoch v. Pennsylvania) ruled that a licence fee cannot be levied against a person, in order for that person to exercise his rights, granted under the Constitution, to wit freedom of religion In this case Murdoch was a Jehovah's Witness minister solicititing membership in the church. The community tried to force him to purchase a licence to solicit in the community. Since a precedent has already set why are we still paying these taxes, to be safer AMERICANS? Jim S. Last edited by JIMSPD9; February 6, 2011 at 04:36 PM.

February 6, 2011, 04:39 PM	#2
EdInk Senior Member Join Date: May 27, 2009 Posts: 3,968	I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, I will even go a step further and say that IMHO even having to have a CCW permit is unconstitutional. It is my belief that any citizen that can lawful own a firearm, should not have that right restricted in any manner. This includes magazine capacity limits, NFA regulations, FOID cards, CCW permits or other forms of gun control. __________________ Sic Semper Tyrannis

February 6, 2011, 04:54 PM	#3
JerryM Senior Member Join Date: April 4, 1999 Location: New Mexico Posts: 1,889	No, not unconstitutional. But anyone can be a test case. Jerry __________________ Ecclesiastes 12:13 ¶Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

February 6, 2011, 04:55 PM	#4
DonutGuy Senior Member Join Date: January 31, 2010 Posts: 327	you're talking state vs federal laws which is a can of worms. __________________ McLovin? Yeah. Great name. It is, it just rolls off the tongue. 'Sounds like a sexy hamburger!

February 6, 2011, 07:19 PM	#6
DanWesson357 Member Join Date: April 3, 2009 Location: Metro Detroit Area, Michigan Posts: 67	I view it that sometimes you have to pick your battles, no matter how unjust it is. But as explained to me in my CCW class, that "carrying" is not necessarily guaranteed to us anyway. Our right to keep and bear arms is. As to exactly where they can be kept and bared is a whole new can of worms. As well, my concern isn't that we're being charged for CCW permits when there are still states in the union which have no carry laws, and that there is virtually no carry in many "may issue" states. I say we need to work on that before we worry about a fee that crops up every five years (at least in my state). If I'll fight for anything pertaining to CCW laws, it will be to make every state "shall issue". Nothing less. We have to face the facts that public opinion is against us. Problem is, not allowing them to go too far. Which is yet again another can of worms. I have the feeling many people here think that registration, permits and background checks are already going too far. But it's like the smoking ban. Michigan became one of 37 states to ban smoking in public places last year. It's a bunch of B.S. for many reasons. The biggest being that bars are mostly frequented by smokers. Business has dropped off due to the fight of the nonsmoker to "free" themselves of the inconvenience of cigarette smoke in an institution they don't even frequent. So for now, I'll take a tax against me and/or the business if it means having a "tobacco tax" to allow us to smoke inside. Is it crap? Yes. Does it interfere with private enterprise? ABSOLUTELY. But it's either this or nothing. I'll take this over the nothing we currently have. __________________ "If someone's personality changes when they carry a gun, they should leave it at home." - Catfishman

February 6, 2011, 05:27 PM	#5
mes227 Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2010 Location: Incline Village, NV Posts: 535	"Well trained malitia" gives the feds the right do to a lot more than charge trivial fees! And no serious court is going to rule that such fees are an infringement.

February 6, 2011, 08:31 PM	#7
Jim Watson Senior Member Join Date: October 25, 2001 Location: Alabama Posts: 18,539	Charging for the exercise of a right is unconstitutional. Look up "poll tax."

February 6, 2011, 09:01 PM	#8
JohnKSa Staff Join Date: February 12, 2001 Location: DFW Area Posts: 24,974	Moved to L&CR. __________________ Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?

February 6, 2011, 09:40 PM	#10
DanWesson357 Member Join Date: April 3, 2009 Location: Metro Detroit Area, Michigan Posts: 67	"2)The "militia" clause has been firmly shot down as the only, and even primary, reason for the 2A" You need to tell that to a lot of people who believe otherwise. I still cringe when I hear someone say that it only refers to militias. __________________ "If someone's personality changes when they carry a gun, they should leave it at home." - Catfishman Last edited by Glenn E. Meyer; February 7, 2011 at 05:16 PM. Reason: Inappropriate usage

February 6, 2011, 11:40 PM	#12
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,460	As In Murdock, I believe permit fees are unconstitutional, IF a permit is the only way you can carry in your state. Some states (such as Ohio and Utah) have state supreme court rulings that say if the state wants to regulate/license concealed carry, open carry has to be legal without any license. That's based on the language of their state constitutions. In states such as that, you can exercise your constitutional RKBA without a license/permit, so the fee for a concealed carry permit would not be unconstitutional. Conversely, in states such as mine where NO carry is allowed except with a permit, then charging a fee to exercise a Constitutionally-guaranteed right is unconstitutional. It won't be tomorrow or even next week, but I have no doubt that the courts will eventually have to accept this and rule accordingly. It's just going to take the right case.

February 7, 2011, 12:16 AM	#13
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	Aguila, actually it is Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Ohio, Vermont, and Wyoming (I probably missed a couple) that don't regulate open carry. In Utah, you must have a CCW to openly carry. Don't rightly know about the other States, but both Idaho and Vermont laws are based upon State Supreme Court cases in the very early 1900's. Whether or not CCW permit fees are constitutional, is something that will be decided later. Right now, the focus is on getting all the States to acknowledge that you have the right to carry. With or without a permit. Personally, as long as there is a means to carry, freely and without a state controlled permit, regulation and licensing of other means of carry is a permissible police power.

February 7, 2011, 12:34 AM	#14
LDSGJA Member Join Date: January 27, 2011 Location: Inland Empire, CA Posts: 70	The Supreme court only hears about about 80-150 cases per year - so things like having to shell out $200 for a gun permit aren't a very high priority compared to things like an outright handgun ban in Chicago/DC. Plus since the justices can ignore cases they often avoid issues that they think are too hot/politically charged. Chances are lots of laws are unconstitutional but I think many politicos tend to look the other way because it makes it difficult to run a modern world power that keeps its citizens tame and well behaved. Even taxes were unconstitutional until the 16th amendment.

February 7, 2011, 01:41 AM	#16
armsmaster270 Senior Member Join Date: November 25, 2008 Location: California Posts: 1,951	The fees should be reasonable, for record checks. Not all citizens should be permitted to carry or have a weapon such as dangerous felons. Would you want a convicted rapist on the streets with a legal gun? Vermont allows concealed carry with no license. __________________ http://www.armsmaster.net-a.googlepages.com http://s239.photobucket.com/albums/f...aster270/Guns/ Retired LE, M.P., Sr. M.P. Investigator F.B.I. Trained Rangemaster/Firearms Instructor & Armorer, Presently Forensic Document Examiner for D.H.S.

February 7, 2011, 01:46 AM	#17
m17s_guy Member Join Date: February 1, 2011 Location: Georgia Posts: 92	i have to say as an LEO, that even though i agree with a lot of above posters in the fact that a CCW permit IMHO is unconstitutional, you have to think of it in another way. the background check and accompanying permit deem you a legal carrier of said weapon. so if there IS a background check, then that piece of paper you get is your ability to show the LEO who stopped you at an alcohol check point to know that the pistol under your arm is legal and carried by someone who is allowed to by law. and those people who give the classes, and do the background checks need to be paid for their work just like the teachers who educate our children. now do i believe that the fees should be so high? NO... do i believe the background checks and certain gun control laws are needed? YES!!!! i dont believe a person with paranoid schizophrenia should be walking around with a gun on their hip, nor should someone who has been convicted of a violent crime. IMHO someone who has committed a violent crime with a weapon should not be allowed to have another, because they have shown intentional disregard for law when they held a deadly weapon. so the background checks ARE important IMO.

February 7, 2011, 02:17 AM	#19
Buzzcook Senior Member Join Date: November 29, 2007 Location: Everett, WA Posts: 6,126	Why should I pay for your permit? Are you really full of constitutional fervor or are you just a cheapskate looking for a free ride at public expense?

February 7, 2011, 07:45 AM	#20
jgcoastie Senior Member Join Date: February 15, 2009 Location: Kodiak, Alaska Posts: 2,118	Someone has to pay for it... Might as well be the one who's getting the permit... "There ain't no free lunch, 'cept Jesus." __________________ "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." -Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.

February 7, 2011, 08:21 AM	#21
BGutzman Senior Member Join Date: December 4, 2009 Location: Frozen Tundra Posts: 2,414	A big problem is at various times and places the court system has patiently decided not to follow the constitution and to make its own rules despite language many Americans would agree is not ambiguous. How do we change this? I don't know... What I have been told is legal language is so far different from common English that we simply don't understand what we are reading. Is it true? I don't know but some of the most experienced people here in this forum seem to believe this, so maybe it’s true. What I think is that at times the court including the supreme court has made decisions based only on personal politics of the judges involved and not what the constitutions says, its a huge problem. The additional complication it seems the SCOTUS has intentionally avoided even taking a stance on various constitutional issues concerning 2A for a very long time when it could have been spelled out long ago. I mean come on this country has been around this long and they only now have ruled we have a right to "handguns" and the other types of arms weren't included or specifically spelled out as not being included under the right... The whole thing is just a bad way to do business. Finally for myself the only possible fix I can ever see is for a Constitutional Convention to actually spellout what arms we have a right to and for some what specific violations of law are able to take that right away. (Risky at best in todays world of back door deals.) The system we currently have is just a mess with such a variety of state, federal and local laws its a wonder anyone can do or own much of anything. __________________ Molon Labe Last edited by BGutzman; February 7, 2011 at 08:45 AM.

February 7, 2011, 02:15 PM	#22
Frank Ettin Staff Join Date: November 23, 2005 Location: California - San Francisco Posts: 9,471	The bottom line is that until fees and/or permits are finally ruled unconstitutional by a court, they will be continue to be collected and required. And even if they are found unconstitutional by one lower court, they might still be collected and required by places not within the jurisdiction of that court -- at least unless the Supreme Court rules they're unconstitutional. But if anyone with the time and money wants to challenge one of those laws, the courts are open for business.

February 7, 2011, 03:20 PM	#24
Skans Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2008 Posts: 11,132	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?

February 7, 2011, 04:23 PM	#25
DonutGuy Senior Member Join Date: January 31, 2010 Posts: 327	Here in Indiana we can buy a lifetime permit for (I think) $125, which I think is very reasonable since its a one time cost. As far as fees being unconstitutional, I think the fees are there to pay for the job being done. Paper,manpower,background checks, etc isn't free...it does take some man hours to get that done for A LOT of people in each State. At least ( in most states) we can carry our weapons legally whether open or concealed, be thankful for that. __________________ McLovin? Yeah. Great name. It is, it just rolls off the tongue. 'Sounds like a sexy hamburger!