CCW permits an illegal tax?

[HisSoldier]

Talking with my brother about CCW permits, he said he used to have one but refused to anymore because he views it as a tax. I can't remember what I paid but though it does seem paltry compared with the prospect of meeting an armed assailant without a gun, but he does have a point. The second amendment says I have the right to keep and bear arms. It seems to me that the process of being fingerprinted implies that I have to prove my innocence before I get to utilize my right to bear arms. Would not a tax on my bearing arms be considered by most rational people as infringement?
Now, here is the final point of my thread argument; If a law abiding citizen, with no police record is "caught" exercising his second amendment right (There being no language about concealed carry in the amendment) why is he charged with a crime? Considering the intent of the amendment it would seem that anyone trying to infringe on our rights to carry would be the lawbreaker.

 

[Art Eatman]

It may be immoral, but it's in no way illegal--at least, you won't find a court in the land that will see it as your brother does. If nothing else, the Supremes would probably see it as a Commerce Clause issue...

I hate to say it, but this is one of those arguments that's a waste of time and bandwidth.

Art

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Would not a tax on my bearing arms be considered by most rational people as infringement?

You mean like the $200 NFA tax at issue in Miller and Staples (two Supreme Court cases dealing with NFA weapons)? No court has yet reached that conclusion.

For what it is worth, currently the last Supreme Court case to deal directly with the Second Amendment was U.S. v. Miller in 1938. Since that decision the lower courts have reached two different conclusions:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right; but that right is subject to reasonable restrictions (an example of a reasonable restriction that every court has approved of is denying firearms to felons)

2. The Second Amendment protects only the right of the states to form a militia if they wish and there is no right to own firearms outside of the militia.

You will probably also want to read all of the threads in Legal discussing Parker or Heller and pay attention to the links to legal briefs in those threads. Those will answer a lot of your questions.

 

[El Tejon]

Objection!

One cannot be required to pay a tax in order to exercise a right. Murdoch v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943). Further the state cannot require registration of those to exercise a right. Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 530-540 (1945). Further, taxing a right, for whatever motive, is illegal and is void. Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Commn'r of Rev., 460 U.S. 575 (1983).

Don't you just wish the Supreme Court would treat the Second Amendment like the First? If that happened, law professors would argue that ownership of M16s is mandatory and pistols would be sold in vending machines at airports. To that day!

 

[Thain]

There is absolutly nothing unconstitutional or illeagal about paying a fee to obtain a license to engage in a restricted activity. Concealed carry is not the same thing as bearing arms, and legally it never has been.

You are not paying a fee to "bear arms," you are paying the fee to "conceal" those arms.

 

[alucard0822]

It is not a tax, merely and infringement fee, if you did not pay this fee and are caught carrying you may have your rights infringed some more or even totally. This was not always the way, but politicians got greedy and we got lazy.

As much as we hate to admit it, the constitution is merely a peice of paper, the forefathers had the intelligence and insight to build redundant controls and limitations on our government to both limit government authority, and preserve the rights of citizens, but ultimately we are the ones that validate the constitution, the present system is one that we voted for, and our complacency twards freedoms has given us.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Don't you just wish the Supreme Court would treat the Second Amendment like the First? If that happened, law professors would argue that ownership of M16s is mandatory and pistols would be sold in vending machines at airports. To that day!

If that was a motion, please consider it seconded.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

You are not paying a fee to "bear arms," you are paying the fee to "conceal" those arms.

I haven't heard that argument before. Is "bear" synonymous with "open carry"? A lot of people choose CC because of the public's knee-jerk reaction to seeing a firearm. I don't think concealed carry was uncommon in colonial days, and their mode of dress allowed concealment of much bigger handguns
I'm sure it could be argued it's an administrative fee for producing, filing, maintaining, CHLs and records, but some states are excessive. I think it just gives the cops another reason to bust someone who didn't want to go through their "papers, please" registration.

 

[HisSoldier]

"I hate to say it, but this is one of those arguments that's a waste of time and bandwidth."

I would suggest that the reason you hate to say it is because you feel it is too late. I don't believe that. If we don't make an issue of it every time we can it probably will eventually be too late, and a waste of time and bandwidth.

 

[HisSoldier]

"2. The Second Amendment protects only the right of the states to form a militia if they wish and there is no right to own firearms outside of the militia."

I disagree, there is no language that says one has to be employed in a militia to have that right, in fact the words "The right of the people" seem to me to imply that it's a universal right of all citizens. I believe the intent was that people could form up militias to defend those rights should a tyrant try to take the rights away. It's also important to research the meaning of the words "well regulated" in the context of the common meaning of the time, I believe it is different than our current understanding. I believe it meant that firearms and citizen ownership and carrying of them was to be considered regular, but I don't recall the exact logic of the difference now.

 

[The Deer Hunter]

I'm not happy at all paying the $100 to get my FID, but its probably some of my best spend money.

 

[Jimmy Newman]

HisSoldier, he wasn't stating that as his opinion, but as one of two opinions which courts have held in 2A related decisions over the years... I think most of us disagree with that interpretation.

 

[JohnBT]

"Talking with my brother about CCW permits, he said he used to have one but refused to anymore"

So he's either stopped carrying or carries unlawfully? Two bad choices.

 

[HisSoldier]

He stopped carrying. I'm not sure he ever did. He is the one who used to say better twelve judging me than six carrying me. I carried before getting a permit until I heard it might be a felony. Funny, I used to carry because he used to say that. A short stay in jail could easily turn into a long stay in prison. It may be that having six carrying me would be better than a long stay in prison. All because of hoplophobia.

 

[Art Eatman]

HisSoldier, rights are generally lost by laws in what could be called a "nibbling" process. A little bit here, a little bit there.

You can only get them back in the same general manner. This has been done, in part, by the passing of CHL laws in states which previously would put you in jail for carrying at all. Call that Step One in a lengthy process of regaining rights.

Something is better than nothing. It doesn't mean you quit trying to get more and better changes...

Art

 

[AntiqueCollector]

IMHO, it is an infringement just like poll taxes were an infringement on the right to vote. And as to it being only about "concealed carry" it is not because many states require a license/permit to do both CC and OC and some ban OC entirely and only allow CC which requires the permit/license. I'm quite happy to be living in a state which requires no permit for either CC or OC, and the state I will be moving to in the future will be the same...

What state is your brother in HisSoldier? In some states OC is allowed without a permit/license and he may do that...

 

[HisSoldier]

We both live in Oregon, he lives in Yamhill county and I in Tillamook county.

 

[HankB]

If a law abiding citizen, with no police record is "caught" exercising his second amendment right (There being no language about concealed carry in the amendment) why is he charged with a crime?

Because should the case go to trial, during voir dire the DA who's prosecuting will do all he can - probably successfully - to keep people like me off the jury.

 

[AntiqueCollector]

We both live in Oregon, he lives in Yamhill county and I in Tillamook county.

Oregon is an OC without permit state, but according to opencarry.org and unless they are incorrect some cities have bans on OC (which a state CC permit gets around it appears) and there are some places off limits too that aren't for CC permit holders. I'm not in OR so you'll have to carefully check all laws and ordinances to determine legality of OC without the permit in any particular area...but it appears you do have the option in much of your state...

 

[DMK]

There is absolutly nothing unconstitutional or illeagal about paying a fee to obtain a license to engage in a restricted activity. Concealed carry is not the same thing as bearing arms, and legally it never has been.

You are not paying a fee to "bear arms," you are paying the fee to "conceal" those arms.

Many locals forbid one to carry a weapon (bear arms) without a CCL. In those cases, you are paying a fee to bear arms since licensed concealed carry is the only way to legally do it.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Because should the case go to trial, during voir dire the DA who's prosecuting will do all he can - probably successfully - to keep people like me off the jury.

The plantiff and the defendant have to agree on the jury. How will they know you are a "people like me?"

 

[CoRoMo]

"The Second Amendment is my concealed carry permit, period!"
Ted Nugent