Murdock v. Commonwealth of PA overturned?

[DKSuddeth]

imported post

In Murdock, the USSC specifically stated that no state may charge a license, fee, or tax for a right protected by the US constitution, yet Scalia seems to be saying that a state can actually do that now. Is this correct?

 

[Thundar]

imported post

Scalia said that in the prayer for relief and oral arguments the defendant said licensing was good enough, so he went no further.

Registration or licensing does not mean that a state or city can charge fees to the citizen. This will be a huge part of the extremely burdensome requirements that the city of Chicago has for annual registration.

My prediction is that fees for concealed carry = constitutional and fees for open carry = unconstitutional.

 

[Phssthpok]

imported post

Thundar wrote:

My prediction is that fees for concealed carry = constitutional and fees for open carry = unconstitutional.

I think the pooint that DK was trying to make was not about carry modes, but the actuall OWNERSHIP/POSESSION of a firearm in DC. Under current DC law you must register your firearms in oder to remain within the law, but I don't know if there is a fee attached to such a requirement.

Ill. requires a FOID in order to simply OWN a firearm which requires a $10 processing fee. Now Since DC V Heller established ownership as an individual RIGHT, that fee should go away via Murdock. However the question will inevitably arrise: is the fee on the FOID itself or on the action of PROCESSING the request?

To the average layperson there is no difference. Under law though there is.

 

[DKSuddeth]

imported post

Phssthpok wrote:

I think the pooint that DK was trying to make was not about carry modes, but the actuall OWNERSHIP/POSESSION of a firearm in DC. Under current DC law you must register your firearms in oder to remain within the law, but I don't know if there is a fee attached to such a requirement.

Actually, that was not the point I was trying to make, however, I certainly didn't think about the facet that you have brought up and it's also an excellent additional issue that should go right along with it. Thank you for bringing it up and including it.

 

[Gunslinger]

imported post

DKSuddeth wrote:

In Murdock, the USSC specifically stated that no state may charge a license, fee, or tax for a right protected by the US constitution, yet Scalia seems to be saying that a state can actually do that now. Is this correct?

Iffy situation. Under the Commerce Clause, the Fed charge for a class 3 license. It is a tax under that clause, not on the mere possession of an automatic weapon. States use that excuse, as well. When you pay for a CCW, you are actually paying for reasonable costs incurred, under many state laws--not a fee or a tax. Very messy area, but case law usually supports "reasonable cost" to 'license.'