US Supreme Court: Gun Licensing Fees Are Unconstitutional

American Thinker ^ | 4/12/21 | Civis Americanus

[skimbell]

...The USSC also found, "A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution."  This means the entire Bill of Rights...

[Graybeard58]

So, there goes marriage license fees? So much the state being “in the marriage business.”

......................................

Broadcast license fee?

[ex91B10]

Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) is the law being quoted here. Long time ago.

[ro_dreaming]

It’ll be called a convenience fee, or a convenience surcharge - as always.

I mean, when I register my car here in Texas, I pay $25.50 to get it inspected, then I pay another ~$70 PLUS a “convenience fee” for paying it ONLINE - where no person other than me is inconvenienced. It’s freakin’ insane

[Bonemaker]

It’s all yours...no copyright! I also like criminalannoy or illannoy.😀

[usconservative]

Illannoyed is a favorite of mine, been using it for ... I can’t remember how long. I didn’t make it up, I’m sure I saw it somewhere, probably here on FR years ago.

[MileHi]

So what does this decision mean in real life?

[MayflowerMadam]

I think gun licenses are unconstitutional.

[Cboldt]

-- So what does this decision mean in real life? --

Nothing other than it helped the writer complete a paying assignment. The next gun case SCOTUS takes will weaken whatever "protection" the courts pretend to provide RKBA.

[Dead Corpse]

There are several Rights PROTECTED by the Constitution and BoR, but to my certain knowledge... there are none GRANTED by the Constitution.

[Dead Corpse]

That’s because they are.

[MileHi]

I hoped you wouldn’t say that. But I don’t doubt it.

[daniel1212]

"Those probably aren’t going anywhere. Why? Technically, the Constitution does not guarantee a ‘right’ be marriage even though in some decisions, dicta in the majority opinion has referred to marriage as ‘right.’ In reality though, in the cases where the court has weighed in on marriage, like Loving & Windsor, those central legal holdings in those decisions were really based on 5A and 14A considerations. IOW, essentially states have the right to regulate marriage, but they don’t have the right to structure those regulations in a way that discriminates on the basis of religion, race or sexual orientation (anymore). If marriage were a de jure constitutional right, then even cousins would be allowed to marry or siblings or children & parents. But, they aren’t because it’s not really an enumerated ‘right,’ even though for most practical purposes, it’s a de facto right."

Thanks for the informed response, but it seems that since in Obergefell v. Hodges the liberal majority of SCOTUS horrendously ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, then it seems to consider homosexual marriage to be a constitutional right, though as with guns ownership, some local regulation is allowed.

[ScubaDiver]

The analogy you make to gun ownership is a good one. Even though the Constitution clearly says, ‘shall not be infringed,’ the Court has allowed a great deal of infringing to creep in. In fact, it has read 2A far more narrowly than it has read the imaginary ‘right to marry’ clause. While the Court makes all states accept the marriage licenses of all other states, it hasn’t acted similarly on gun licenses. Go figure.

[Spitzensparkin1]

Myrddin wrote:
“Perhaps the $200 NFA Stamp tax is also unconstitutional.”

Yes, a precedent even.

SS1

[skepsel]

Since when does the Constitution “grant” rights?