Massachusetts: "Cost of firearms ID card hiked by 300% to $100"

[cuchulainn]

from the Berkshire Eagle

http://www.berkshireeagle.com/Stories/0,1413,101~7514~1501894,00.html

Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 2:21:07 AM EST

Cost of firearms ID card hiked by 300% to $100

By Ellen G. Lahr
Berkshire Eagle Staff

LEE -- The cost of being a law-abiding gun owner has just gone up.
Tacked onto the state's final fiscal 2004 budget was a 300 percent hike in the cost of obtaining a firearms identification card: It will now cost $100, no longer $25.

The same fee hike applies to licenses to carry firearms.

"'Somebody is going to be seriously mad about this, considering it already takes three or four months for it to come back from Boston," said one area police officer, who yesterday had no idea about the fee increases.

Margaret Beckwith of Great Barrington, who is a delegate from the Stockbridge Sportsman's Club to the Berkshire County League of Sportsmen, was critical of the sharp increase.

Beckwith, also a Great Barrington selectwoman, said the fee hike will be a a deterrent to hunters, and appears to reflect Gov. Mitt Romney's attitude that "only cops should have guns."

"It's just one step more toward taking guns away from people," said Beckwith, who runs a deer checking station during hunting season.

"We want people to know it's the state, not the towns, making these changes," said Lee Police Chief Ronald C. Glidden, whose office had to break the news yesterday to a man who came in with a $25 check.

"The word was just getting spread around today," he said yesterday.

Police departments are the gatekeepers when it comes to taking applications for firearms identification cards and other gun permits.

The licenses are still valid for four years, and there is still no renewal fee for applicants who are 70 or older.

Of the $100 fee, cities and towns keep $25, $50 goes to the state, and the remaining $25 goes to a newly established "Firearms Identity Verification Trust."

Glidden, who is chairman of the state's Gun Control Advisory Board, said most police departments were only just notified yesterday of the fee hike. Besides the fee increase, a 60- to 90-day backlog at the state's firearms identification department is causing further problems for applicants.

He urged applicants seeking renewal to apply at least three months in advance to avoid expiration of their firearms permits.

Mark Jester, president of the Berkshire County League of Sportsmen, said his group's membership is not happy with the fee hike.

"There's been no new taxes but they're 'fee-ing' us to death," said Jester, whose league includes 26 different clubs and 3,000 sportsmen.

 

[Carlos Cabeza]

Somebody's gotta make the Ferrari payment..................................

 

[Greg L]

If you make it too expensive/inconvienent to own a gun many will stop owning them. Apathy wins over outright bans everytime.

Greg

 

[Tropical Z]

"firearms identity verification trust"
What exactly is that?

 

[TheOtherOne]

Beckwith, also a Great Barrington selectwoman, said the fee hike will be a a deterrent to hunters, and appears to reflect Gov. Mitt Romney's attitude that "only cops should have guns."

I liked the guy when he was doing the Olympics here in Utah ... but not anymore. Even with good past deeds, gun grabber's get zero respect from me.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Of the $100 fee, cities and towns keep $25, $50 goes to the state, and the remaining $25 goes to a newly established "Firearms Identity Verification Trust."

Let me guess: the Firearms Identify Verification Trust funnels campaign money to representatives of the Democratic (sic) party in Taxachussets.

 

[jimpeel]

Tropical Z

"firearms identity verification trust"
What exactly is that?

When I first arrived in MA the card was $2 and was good for life. The need for one was only if you planned to move your firearms outside of your home. I didn't get one as I had no intent to do so.

Then Cheryl Jaques (pron. "Jakes") decided we needed to have more gun control and an AW ban. The legislature voted to increase the fee to $25 and the card was good for only four years. In addition, you had to be fingerprinted and have a mugshot taken and that information was entered onto the state's criminal database. They also decided that if one FID was good, three would be better so they invented various classes of FID cards. You also needed to get one even if you did not intend to move the firearm outside of your home.

From the moment they did this there was no doubt that the fees would increase in an ever tightening noose of incrementalism. This is merely step two.

The "firearms identity verification trust" is probably the part where they post your mugshot and fingerprints on the state criminal database.

There are two interesting cases that deal with charging a fee to excercise a Constitutional right. It would be interesting to see what would happen if this fee were challenged as a fee to excercise a right.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=319&invol=105

JONES v. CITY OF OPELIKA, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) 319 U.S. 105

MURDOCK
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA and seven other cases.

Nos. 480-487.
Argued March 10, 11, 1943.
Decided May 3, 1943.

At issue was the requirement for a fee to distribute religious literature door to door.

In Murdock, the court stated:

The taxes imposed by this ordinance can hardly help but be as severe and telling in their impact on the freedom [319 U.S. 105, 115] of the press and religion as the 'taxes on knowledge' at which the First Amendment was partly aimed. Grosjean v. American Press Co., supra, 297 U.S. at pages 244-249, 56 S.Ct. at pages 446-449. They may indeed operate even more subtly. Itinerant evangelists moving throughout a state or from state to state would feel immediately the cumulative effect of such ordinances as they become fashionable. The way of the religious dissenter has long been hard. But if the formula of this type of ordinance is approved, a new device for the suppression of religious minorities will have been found. This method of disseminating religious beliefs can be crushed and closed out by the sheer weight of the toll or tribute which is exacted town by town, village by village. The spread of religious ideas through personal visitations by the literature ministry of numerous religious groups would be stopped.

The fact that the ordinance is 'nondiscriminatory' is immaterial. The protection afforded by the First Amendment is not so restricted. A license tax certainly does not acquire constitutional validity because it classifies the privileges protected by the First Amendment along with the wares and merchandise of hucksters and peddlers and treats them all alike. Such equality in treatment does not save the ordinance. Freedom of press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion are in a preferred position.

It is claimed, however, that the ultimate question in determining the constitutionality of this license tax is whether the state has given something for which it can ask a return. That principle has wide applicability. State Tax Commission v. Aldrich, 316 U.S. 174 , 62 S.Ct. 1008, 139 A.L.R. 1436, and cases cited. But it is quite irrelevant here. This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the federal constitution.

The second case was:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=321&invol=573

FOLLETT v. TOWN OF MCCORMICK, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 (1944)
321 U.S. 573

FOLLETT
v.
TOWN OF McCORMICK, S.C.
No. 486.

Argued Feb. 11, 1944.
Decided March 27, 1944.

The issue was essentially the same as Murdock.

The court (re)stated:

'Freedom of press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion are in a preferred position.' Murdock v. Pennsylvania, supra, 319 U.S. page 115, 63 S.Ct. page 876, 146 A.L.R. 81. We emphasized that the 'inherent vice and evil' of the flat license tax is that 'it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties' and 'inevitably tends to suppress their exercise.' 319 U.S. page 114, 63 S.Ct. page 875, 146 A.L.R. 81.

...

A flat license tax on that constitutional privilege would be as odious as the early 'taxes on knowledge' which the framers of the First Amendment sought to outlaw. Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233 , 245-248, 56 S.Ct. 444, 447, 448. A preacher has no less a claim to that privilege when he is not an itinerant. We referred to the itinerant nature of the activity in the Murdock case merely in emphasis of the prohibitive character of the license tax as so applied. Its unconstitutionality was not dependent on that circumstance. The exaction of a tax as a condition to the exercise of the great liberties guaranteed by the First Amendments is as obnoxious (Grosjean v. American Press Co., supra; Murdock v. Pennsylvania, supra) as the imposition of a censorship or a previous restraint. Near v. Minnesota, 28o U.S. 697, 51 S.Ct. 625. For, to repeat, 'the power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment.' Murdock v. Pennsylvania, supra, 319 U.S. page 112, 63 S.Ct. page 874, 146 A.L.R. 81.

Justice Reed stated:

My understanding of this Court's opinions in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 , 63 S.Ct. 870, 891, 146 A.L.R. 81, and Jones v. Opelika, 319 U.S. 103 , 63 S.Ct. 890, is that distribution of religious literature in return for money when done as a method of spreading the distributor's religious beliefs is an exercise of religion within the First Amendment and therefore immune from interference by the requirement of a license. These opinions are now the law of the land.

There are numerous cases which cite Murdock and Follett:

Search Results For: murdock and follett
1. FindLaw Case
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/00-1737.html

2. FindLaw: FOLLETT v. TOWN OF MCCORMICK, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 (1944)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/321/573.html

3. FindLaw: THOMAS v. COLLINS, 323 U.S. 516 (1945)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/323/516.html

4. FindLaw: MARSH v. STATE OF ALA., 326 U.S. 501 (1946)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/326/501.html

5. FindLaw: EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/330/1.html

6. FindLaw: KOVACS V. COOPER , 336 U.S. 77 (1949)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/336/77.html

7. FindLaw: NIEMOTKO v. MARYLAND, 340 U.S. 268 (1951)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/340/268.html

8. FindLaw: CAMMARANO v. UNITED STATES, 358 U.S. 498 (1959)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/358/498.html

9. FindLaw: McGOWAN v. MARYLAND, 366 U.S. 420 (1961)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/366/420.html

10. FindLaw: BRAUNFELD v. BROWN, 366 U.S. 599 (1961)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/366/599.html

11. FindLaw: SHERBERT v. VERNER, 374 U.S. 398 (1963)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/374/398.html

12. FindLaw: GILLETTE v. UNITED STATES, 401 U.S. 437 (1971)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/401/437.html

13. FindLaw: JOHNSON v. ROBISON, 415 U.S. 361 (1974)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/415/361.html

14. FindLaw: UNITED STATES v. LEE, 455 U.S. 252 (1982)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/455/252.html

15. FindLaw: MINNEAPOLIS STAR v. MINNESOTA COMM'R OF REV., 460 U.S. 575 (1983)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/460/575.html

16. FindLaw: BOWEN v. ROY, 476 U.S. 693 (1986)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/476/693.html

17. FindLaw: EMPLOYMENT DIVISION v. SMITH, 485 U.S. 660 (1988)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/485/660.html

18. FindLaw: TEXAS MONTHLY, INC. v. BULLOCK, 489 U.S. 1 (1989)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/489/1.html

19. FindLaw: SWAGGART MINISTRIES v. CAL. BD. OF EQUALIZATION, 493 U.S. 378 (1990)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/493/378.html

20. FindLaw: EMPLOYMENT DIV., ORE. DEPT. OF HUMAN RES. v. SMITH, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/494/872.html

 

[moa]

300% is a whopping increase for a fee. If the politicians can get away with these kinds of increases, along with radically shortening the license validity period, you can bet the ranch more is too follow. Maybe next it will be $400 for a one year license.

 

[Monkeyleg]

Democrats claim to be the protectors of the poor, and of minorities. But hikes in fees such as this, increased taxes on things like cigarettes and alcohol, and other "do-gooder" legislation adversely impacts the very groups they claim to represent. And those groups just keep voting for the same thieves.