The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => SCOTUS News => Topic started by: Elderberry on April 13, 2021, 04:52:51 pm
-
American Thinker by Civis Americanus 4/12/2021
While I am not an attorney and cannot give formal legal advice, a 1943 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, may give Second Amendment–supporters an overwhelming legal weapon with which to destroy every single firearm ownership (although not necessarily concealed carry) licensing scheme in the country. This includes those that require licenses to own or purchase firearms.
• License to own: IL, MA, NY
• License to purchase: CT, HI, IA, MD, MI, NE, NJ, NC, RI
The executive summary of the ruling in Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) was that it is unconstitutional for a state to levy a tax on people who want to sell religious merchandise. "A municipal ordinance which, as construed and applied, requires religious colporteurs to pay a license tax as a condition to the pursuit of their activities, is invalid under the Federal Constitution as a denial of freedom of speech, press and religion. The mere fact that the religious literature is 'sold', rather than 'donated' does not transform the activities of the colporteur into a commercial enterprise."
What does this have to do with fees to obtain a license to own or purchase a firearm? 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 as opposed to just the First Amendment.
It is similarly unconstitutional to charge a fee to exercise the right to vote, AKA a poll tax. This could well be the reason why states with voter ID laws must provide free identification cards to qualified residents who do not have driver's licenses, as shown by Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. "The law's universally applicable requirements are eminently reasonable because the burden of acquiring, possessing, and showing a free photo identification is not a significant increase over the usual voting burdens, and the State's stated interests are sufficient to sustain that minimal burden." States can charge fees for driver's licenses because driving is a privilege, but voting is a right.
More: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/04/us_supreme_court_gun_licensing_fees_are_unconstitutional.html (https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/04/us_supreme_court_gun_licensing_fees_are_unconstitutional.html)
-
Can you imagine a license requirement for the 1st amendment?
-
Can you imagine a license requirement for the 1st amendment?
Can you imagine a sales tax on newspapers? Or a government establishing secular humanism as a basis for religious law?
-
Can you imagine a license requirement for the 1st amendment?
You mean FCC broadcast licensing?
-
Can you imagine a sales tax on newspapers? Or a government establishing secular humanism as a basis for religious law?
SH is the basis for all sorts of cult-beliefs of the left.
They believe there is no difference between man and woman.
They believe man can become woman, that men can menstruate, and that girls can compete with boys in athletics.
They worship the earth.
They believe they can do no wrong.
So, sure, secular humanism is frequently codified into law in contradiction to the First Amendment.
-
You mean FCC broadcast licensing?
That is for permission to use public controlled radio frequency.
You don't need a license to own a car but you need one to drive on the public roads.
-
Can you imagine a sales tax on newspapers? Or a government establishing secular humanism as a basis for religious law?
I seem to recall many many moons ago in California that when I bought a newspaper inside a liquor store they charged me tax, it may have been around the time they eliminated the take out exemption for food. But that was also back in the day that you could find a newspaper where the writers mostly kept their opinion on the editorial or opinion pages, the journalism that was and they never even had a funeral.
-
Back on target, how about "taxing" firearms, like the NFA of '34 provides?
-
That is for permission to use public controlled radio frequency.
You don't need a license to own a car but you need one to drive on the public roads.
And the government had what Constitutional authority to seize ownership of the electromagnetic spectrum?
Nobody disagrees with the mandatory licensing of motor-vehicle operators. It's a safety issue. That does not apply to the radio waves. What should have happened, in a free society, was that the government would have expanded patent protections to operators who developed and exploited radio band-width, within the effective range of the transmitters. The patent holders would have rights to exclusive use of that bandwidth, rights that could be sold and traded on the open market.
In other words, someone operating WKRP out of Cincinatti would have sole right to that frequency in that area, and the regulations would have restricted other use in that area, punishing radio piracy. As the technology developed, so too would the laws.
Blanket seizure of the entire spectrum was not an authority the Congress held from the Constitution. Radio is not "interstate commerce". It's covered by the First Amendment.
-
Back on target, how about "taxing" firearms, like the NFA of '34 provides?
Nope, that would seem to be an "infringement", as is the goal of the Rodents to tax ammunition out of existence.
A sales tax that treats ammo as any other retail product is one thing, any tax targeting ammunition is something else.
-
The SCOTUS has done a lot of chipping away at the 2nd Amendment since 1943. Citing this decision won't get us anywhere. :shrug:
-
Nope, that would seem to be an "infringement", as is the goal of the Rodents to tax ammunition out of existence.
A sales tax that treats ammo as any other retail product is one thing, any tax targeting ammunition is something else.
The question of "tax" vs "penalty" was already rewritten by the SCOTUS (Roberts) in the case against the ACA (Obamacare). The wording of anything will be moot as the Chief Justice effectively rewrote the law against the stated intent of the Legislature in order to rule the ACA penalty/tax "Constitutional".
Granted, either application of a pecuniary compensation to the state for the exercise of a fundamental civil right can be seen as "infringement", but will it in the weasel worded atmosphere of modern jurisprudence?
Frankly, the infringements since and including the NFA of '34 are all unconstitutional, and should have been fought from day one. The difference between a 16.001 inch long barrel on a rifle and 15.998 inches is a Felony in law, but for all practical tactical or ballistic purposes, there is no difference. Registering and taxing one class of weapons makes no difference in anything but the expense in owning one, a clear infringement on a fundamental civil right.
-
The SCOTUS has done a lot of chipping away at the 2nd Amendment since 1943. Citing this decision won't get us anywhere. :shrug:
That'd be 1934...
-
That'd be 1934...
Yeah, that's what I thought. The Miller decision, right? Where the moron judges said that the 2A was limited to weapons of war and that sawed-off shotguns had no utility on a battle-field, which was a laugh because they were used in the trenches of Europe to clean out Jerries.
-
The question of "tax" vs "penalty" was already rewritten by the SCOTUS (Roberts) in the case against the ACA (Obamacare). The wording of anything will be moot as the Chief Justice effectively rewrote the law against the stated intent of the Legislature in order to rule the ACA penalty/tax "Constitutional".
Granted, either application of a pecuniary compensation to the state for the exercise of a fundamental civil right can be seen as "infringement", but will it in the weasel worded atmosphere of modern jurisprudence?
Frankly, the infringements since and including the NFA of '34 are all unconstitutional, and should have been fought from day one. The difference between a 16.001 inch long barrel on a rifle and 15.998 inches is a Felony in law, but for all practical tactical or ballistic purposes, there is no difference. Registering and taxing one class of weapons makes no difference in anything but the expense in owning one, a clear infringement on a fundamental civil right.
But, as you should note, by declaring the fines to be "taxes", the Court then placed MessiahCare in direct violation of the Originations Clause, which requires all bills raising revenue (taxes) to be started in the HOUSE, whereas MessiahCare started in a Senate committee.
So, either way, MessiahCare is still completely unconstitutional.
We don't even need to go to the place where the Constitution does not authorize federal creation of a health insurance program and thus MessiahCare is null and void per the Tenth Amendment.
-
That'd be 1934...
No. This discussion is about the 1943 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Murdock v. Pennsylvania.
-
Yeah, that's what I thought. The Miller decision, right? Where the moron judges said that the 2A was limited to weapons of war and that sawed-off shotguns had no utility on a battle-field, which was a laugh because they were used in the trenches of Europe to clean out Jerries.
No, 1934 was the year the NFA passed. Miller was in 1939, and was decideed more or less by default, considering the defendant had passed away and no arguments were made.
Talk about missed opportunity, the attorney could have pleaded and SCOTUS overturned the NFA if they had done reasonably well, and saved Americans from being saddled with innumerable laws and infringements on their civil rights in the meantime.
-
"A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution."
How about a right granted by God. The right to defend ourselves, provide food for the table, and protect ourselves from an overzealous government.
-
How about a right granted by God. The right to defend ourselves, provide food for the table, and protect ourselves from an overzealous government.
Precisely. The Constitution does not grant Rights, it merely acknowledges the existence of a limited list and tells the Federal Government to leave those (and others not mentioned) alone. The idea is to limit the Government, not the Rights of The People, who formed that government to protect their (preexisting) Rights..
-
Precisely. The Constitution does not grant Rights, it merely acknowledges the existence of a limited list and tells the Federal Government to leave those (and others not mentioned) alone. The idea is to limit the Government, not the Rights of The People, who formed that government to protect their (preexisting) Rights..
More than that - The very formation of this government's aegis is to PROTECT them.
-
• License to purchase: CT, HI, IA, MD, MI, NE, NJ, NC, RI
@Elderberry
You have to get a permit to even buy a gun in NC now? I know the left has taken over control of NC now via black immigrants from the north and non-white immigrants from Spanish-speaking slums passing for nations in the south,but I didn't realize they had gained THAT much control.
NC is now officially a yankee state.
-
Can you imagine a license requirement for the 1st amendment?
@thackney
Yes,and I can imagine it coming from a government now in charge of what USED to be "The UNITED STATES of America.
And we have no one to blame but ourselves for sitting by idly and allowing it to happen.
After all,it didn't happen secretly. The left stood up on both hind hooves and announced that taking over control of America was their goal,and they did it for decade after decade.
It is our fault for sitting by idly and ignoring the threat. Or more correctly,mostly the fault of our parents and grandparents for not "nipping it in the bud". After all,if THEY didn't have vivid examples of what happens to the citizens once a leftist government takes over control,nobody has ever had any warnings about anything.
IMNSHO,this only gained traction because our parents and grandparents ALLOWED the left to get away with identifying the Nazi's a a right-wing political movement,and even Helen Keller could tell at a casual glance there were leftists to the core.
Once people gain the power to shout you down by simply identifying you are a Nazi in public,they are in control of the discussion.
-
SH is the basis for all sorts of cult-beliefs of the left.
They believe there is no difference between man and woman.
They believe man can become woman, that men can menstruate, and that girls can compete with boys in athletics.
They worship the earth.
They believe they can do no wrong.
So, sure, secular humanism is frequently codified into law in contradiction to the First Amendment.
@Sled Dog
That's odd. *I*,most likely fall into the "secular humanist category" by YOUR definitions because I don't believe in crap like a "Holy Ghost living in the sky that sees all,knows all,and is getting wood at the thought of roasting you over a spit for all of eternity unless you agree to kiss his ass at every opportunity and become his slave".
Yet,I believe in NONE of that crap you list.
Is your problem that you don't already have enough enemies,and feel the need to create more?
-
I seem to recall many many moons ago in California that when I bought a newspaper inside a liquor store they charged me tax, it may have been around the time they eliminated the take out exemption for food. But that was also back in the day that you could find a newspaper where the writers mostly kept their opinion on the editorial or opinion pages, the journalism that was and they never even had a funeral.
@GtHawk
If there has EVER been a long overdue funeral,it is that one.
Now that I think about it,I honestly doubt that anyone living today under the age of 50 even understands what that means. ALL they have ever known is the biased press of today that wears red and marches in a straight line.
-
Back on target, how about "taxing" firearms, like the NFA of '34 provides?
@Smokin Joe
Didn't even the drones that worked up Lord and Master Roosevelt pretty much admit that was a step too far,but took it anyway,like all good comrades should?
Now it is so firmly established into law that anyone is shocked if you even suggest it was un-Constitutional.
-
And the government had what Constitutional authority to seize ownership of the electromagnetic spectrum?
Nobody disagrees with the mandatory licensing of motor-vehicle operators. It's a safety issue. That does not apply to the radio waves. What should have happened, in a free society, was that the government would have expanded patent protections to operators who developed and exploited radio band-width, within the effective range of the transmitters. The patent holders would have rights to exclusive use of that bandwidth, rights that could be sold and traded on the open market.
In other words, someone operating WKRP out of Cincinatti would have sole right to that frequency in that area, and the regulations would have restricted other use in that area, punishing radio piracy. As the technology developed, so too would the laws.
Blanket seizure of the entire spectrum was not an authority the Congress held from the Constitution. Radio is not "interstate commerce". It's covered by the First Amendment.
@Sled Dog
GREAT post! Can't disagree with a word of it.
-
No, 1934 was the year the NFA passed. Miller was in 1939, and was decideed more or less by default, considering the defendant had passed away and no arguments were made.
Talk about missed opportunity, the attorney could have pleaded and SCOTUS overturned the NFA if they had done reasonably well, and saved Americans from being saddled with innumerable laws and infringements on their civil rights in the meantime.
@Smokin Joe
You can't possibly believe that King Franklin lost any sleep over that one. He did everything he could do,both legal and illegal to destroy America. We got lucky,and the SOB died before he could destroy us as a free and independent nation.
-
How about a right granted by God. The right to defend ourselves, provide food for the table, and protect ourselves from an overzealous government.
@Sighlass "
Yew wunna doze commie-pinko peeple what thinks dey got rights?
Weezea awatchin yew!
"overzealous goverment"!
Why ah nevah!
-
@Sled Dog
GREAT post! Can't disagree with a word of it.
As I recall, I read the basic premise in "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" by Ayn Rand.
-
No, 1934 was the year the NFA passed. Miller was in 1939, and was decideed more or less by default, considering the defendant had passed away and no arguments were made.
Talk about missed opportunity, the attorney could have pleaded and SCOTUS overturned the NFA if they had done reasonably well, and saved Americans from being saddled with innumerable laws and infringements on their civil rights in the meantime.
Thx. I admit to never having a good head for dates, and that isn't getting any better as I get older.
Next on the agenda, someone explaining how all the other Amendments get incorporated automatically into the states but not the Second.
-
Thx. I admit to never having a good head for dates, and that isn't getting any better as I get older.
Next on the agenda, someone explaining how all the other Amendments get incorporated automatically into the states but not the Second.
..and how "...the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms..." somehow became a right held by "militias" instead of individuals.
-
..and how "...the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms..." somehow became a right held by "militias" instead of individuals.
And how "shall not be infringed" somehow became "shall be infringed as we deem fit".
-
And how "shall not be infringed" somehow became "shall be infringed as we deem fit".
It's odd how those who impose infringements they themselves are exempted from see no problem with the effects you suffer. That is part of the pervasive rhetorical poison in calling our employees a "ruling class".