Don't get me started on the constitutionality of conceal carry permits. And yes precedent has already been set by the US Supreme Court on requiring a license (permit) or tax (fee) to exercise a Constitutional Right. That said, just carry a gun. What the hell do you think "concealed" mean anyway?
According to the US Supreme Court it is unconstitutional to:
• Charge a fee for the exercising of a right (Harper v Virginia Board of Elections 1966)
• Require a precondition on the exercising of a right (Guinn v US 1915, Lane v Wilson 1939)
• Require a license (government permission) to exercise a right (Murdock v PA 1943, Lowell v City of Griffin 1939, Freedman v MD 1965, Near v MN 1931, Miranda v AZ 1966
As always, the heart of the matter comes late in the text, wherein Douglas writes:
"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, 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."
• "If a State does erroneously require a License or Fee for exercise of that Right, the Citizen may Ignore the License and or Fee and exercise the Right with Total Impunity. See Schuttlesworth v. Birmingham 373 U.S 262."
• "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.
• "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
And no matter what the states may say:
• Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 237-238 (1997); State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20 (1997) - "it is this Court's prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents."
• "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no 'rule making' or legislation which would abrogate them." Norton v. Shelby County 118 U.S. 425 (1886)
More from that:
"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
And here's one from McCormick, SC:
• FOLLETT v. TOWN OF McCORMICK 1944 - In summary the Court ruled it was unconstitutional to require a license/permit or fee for a citizen to exercise a Right.
Last edited by Mergie Master; 11-22-2015 at 10:41 PM.
The Elites don't fear the tall nails, government possesses both the will and the means to crush those folks. What the Elites do fear (or should fear) are the quiet men and women, with low profiles, hard hearts, long memories, and detailed target folders for action as they choose.
"I here repeat, & would willingly proclaim, my unmitigated hatred to Yankee rule—to all political, social and business connections with Yankees, & to the perfidious, malignant, & vile Yankee race."
Bookmarks