Federal court decision: "A state cannot impose a license, tax or fee on a constitutionally protected right."--Murdock vs. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 [1942]--
Supreme Court decision: The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. --Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 [1944]--
This was posted at the end of a very long article, so I don't know if it was missed or ignored- but I'm wondering really how most gun laws can stand given the information above- have any gun laws ever been challenged on the basis of these court decisions? Could they be?
It seems to me as a layman that requiring the compliance with umpteen laws to exercise a 2nd Amendment right is in violation of both the 2nd Amendment and the findings of the court as stated above. Am I missing something?
Supreme Court decision: The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. --Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 [1944]--
This was posted at the end of a very long article, so I don't know if it was missed or ignored- but I'm wondering really how most gun laws can stand given the information above- have any gun laws ever been challenged on the basis of these court decisions? Could they be?
It seems to me as a layman that requiring the compliance with umpteen laws to exercise a 2nd Amendment right is in violation of both the 2nd Amendment and the findings of the court as stated above. Am I missing something?