In the Sonzinsky decision, because the case before them involved the regulation of firearms, which at that time had not yet been usurped by the federal courts and which was still understood to be, as the court stated, "reserved to the states." Although that basic Constitutional principle has since been destroyed by a judicial expansion of the "substantive due process" doctrine, the now obviated distinction has no applicability to our discussion here, honored or not.
Think there's any chance at all of discussing the laws actually before us?
I asked about two cases. What about in the Sanchez case? Why distinguish a tax from a penalty in that one?