Gun Permit Refunds

[CarlS]

Where would one "file for refund" of fees collected unlawfully?

Why I ask:

D.C. vs Heller, 2008: Held: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. ….. In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.

MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA 319 US 105 (1942): A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution. The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down a person cannot be compelled ‘to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the Constitution.

Clearly, the Supreme Court has already ruled that imposing a tax or a fee on a constitutionally recognized right is unlawful. The Heller ruling verifies that 2A indeed recognizes and guarantees a right. QED, the imposition of a gun registration permit fee is unlawful; always has been, and reinforced by the 1942 decision. Therefore, the state has no claim to exclusion based on "ex post facto" law.

If enough of us raise this issue .......

[SomeGuy]

Unless I am missing something, we do not pay for gun registration, and the permit is for carry.

Now, I do see an interesting point you bring up. The $10 background check, could that be construed as similar to a poll tax?

[johnharris]

Tennessee law says the permit is a "privilege". If I recall correctly is was Rep. Bobby Sands (now a judge in Columbia I think) who proposed that idea so that the permits could be revoked to enforce child support.

[redbarron06]

So how would the $200 tax for a Class III item fit into this?

[CarlS]

Tennessee law says the permit is a "privilege". The Constitution ( supreme law of the land ) and the "Supreme" court says it's a right. Do we have a case and are there enoough members who will stand up and be counted?

[SomeGuy]

Carl,

The Heller decision was not as sweeping as say, Roe vs Wade. It did NOT go so far as to say a right to carry, though that would be nice. Furthermore, it did in fact leave in caveats noting restrictions could be allowed. It was good, it was a win, but it wasn't a total blowout let us have a victory dance party time kind of decision.

[CarlS]

SomeGuy pointed out that Heller was not a total win. I knew that. My point is that Heller does in fact state that it is a RIGHT. then, Heller limits that right by stating that the bearing of arms is a privilege. They can't have it both ways ... unless, that is, we accept the status quo. See Section 242 of Title 18.

[SomeGuy]

As I recall, Heller was focused on the KEEP portion.

[CarlS]

The purpose of my original post was to point out the contradictions inherent in many of our assumptions about legalities. Recall that the Conbstitution is the "Mother of All our Laws" and that anything not complying with it is inherently unlawful. With that i mind, I repeat:

D.C. vs Heller, 2008: Held: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. ….. In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.

MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA 319 US 105 (1942): A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution. The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down a person cannot be compelled ‘to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the Constitution.

Now either this is true or it is not. Either the court is "supreme" or it is not. Either the court is correct, or it is not.

If it is not, then why do we accept that any of its' other decisions are to be respected?

Or perhaps we should ask, "If law enforcement (judges, attorneys, and LEOs) keep interpreting court decisions in so many differnet ways, isn't that prima facie evidence of the concerp "Void for Vagueness"?

I for one am not okay with the status quo. I want ALL my rights, not just the ones they let me have.

[falcon1]

The Heller decision did not incorporate the Second Amendment. Until it is incorporated, it applies to the national government only, not to the states. Until it is incorporated, the state may charge what it will, unfortunately.

[johnharris]

Heller leaves a great deal unanswered. Its a very small step away from the foolish theory that it only addressed a "collective" right, but its only a small step. In fact, it could well be a step away from what the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect and that was civilian ownership of weapons suitable to displace a tyrannical government. Image, for example, what the colonists would have been able to accomplish if the weapons they were allowed (assuming they could afford them) were not equal to or better than what the British army was equipped with.

Where we would be in a modern day revolution with self-defense pistols, sporting shotguns and rifles?

[CarlS]

Good points, but consider this:

"In their zeal to defend the individual right to keep and bear arms, most firearms owners limit their discussions to the Second Amendment. There is, however, another amendment that not only helps resolve the controversy surrounding the intent and wording of the Second Amendment, but also makes the prohibition enumerated in that Amendment enforceable against the States. In the author’s opinion, this is one of the reasons why opponents of the individual right to keep and bear arms, at the State level, are so opposed to this interpretation of the Second Amendment. In order to understand the effect of the Fourteenth Amendment on the individual right to keep and bear arms, it is necessary to review some of the legislative history ...."
SOURCE: http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend ... _amend.htm

Not an authoritative source, I admit, but then, the court keeps issuing so many conflicting decisions ... should they, any longer, be believed to be authoritative?

Just my thoughts.

[redbarron06]

[SomeGuy]

Because Heller was not the end all and be all victory dance kind of decision. Read the thing, it is is not broad and sweeping. It is long, but it does not overturn everything.

[GGUNSHOP]

how about all those years where the Dept. of Safety took the $50 for the renewal background check then never performed said check... what about that money... huh???

[falcon1]

[CarlS]

It's true, Heller did not incorporate the Second Amendment. It didn't need to; the 1th Amendment was written specifically to apply the Bills of Rights to the states. Agian, see http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend ... _amend.htm

[falcon1]

[CarlS]

From Findlaw.com ( )

Amendment XIV. fn6 [ Annotations ]
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article

[falcon1]

CarlS, I agree with you. At the moment, however, the Supreme Court of the United States does not agree with us...unfortunately, everyone is listening to them, not us.