At 7:57 AM -0600 10/23/03, Peter Boucher wrote: >> Sure, because mandatory registration isn't primarily for the benefit > of >> the gun owner, but the society as a whole. This is also the argument > for >> why background checks should be funded by the government. The society > is >> the beneficiary of background checks, not the person buying the gun. > > I thought of that, too, but then I thought of two other things: (a) > marriage license fees, and even parade permit fees, are not so much for > the benefit of the recipient as they are simply meant to offset the cost > of the government facilitating you in the exercise of your rights, and > (b) Gene has asked us to cite authority for any assertions we make. > > Mostly in consideration of (b) I didn't post my thoughts, but since > Clayton has raised this issue, do any of the law professors on the list > know if there's any controlling precedent for arguments about when fees > for exercising rights can be charged?
Clearly there are "rights licensing" fees in America (usually for gun rights) which are grossly overpriced even given this justification. But my favorite precedent on this topic has to be: 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.' --MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA 319 US 105 (1942) Another case trenches not upon cost but upon equal protection issues undercut by official discretion: An ordinance which... makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official -- as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official -- is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms. And our decisions have made clear that a person faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right of free expression for which the law purports to require a license. --SHUTTLESWORTH v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM AL The case in question was in fact a parade permit case, but I think the sentiment applies equally in a much broader context. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://alum.mit.edu/www/tavares | RKBA! For those of you who remember the years under Mike Dukakis, [Massachusetts Republican] Governor Romney makes them seem like the "good old days." Dukakis tried to raid the Inland Fish and Game Fund. Romney not only attempts such theft, but recommends abolishing 60 years of fish and wildlife management successes, all of which were at no expense to taxpayers. As for gun owners, the governor proposes tripling licensing fees. Why? "If people want a gun, they have to pay for it. If they want to hunt, they have to pay for it." I for one don't need any gun license, I don't want it, and it doesn't provide anything for me. --TONY LAKE, GOAL
