Post by John Strifler on May 29, 2011 8:10:46 GMT -5
Some one was smart to post this in open carry.;
discussion in Texas forum
i just wanted to copy a post from that forum over to here, and see what everyone thought.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105: "No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefore."
Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946 “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights."
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham Alabama, 373 US 262: "If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity."
i copied this from another site:
U.S. v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...l=92&invol=542
In 1875 SCOTUS ruled the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) is not dependent on the Constitution for it's validity, because that right existed before the writing of the Constitution. In further explanation, the court compared the 2nd Amd to right to free speech and worship and so noted free speech and freedom to worship existed long before the Constitution was written. Thus, the Court said, the RKBA was equal in status with the 1st Amd rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
"The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."
PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=116&invol=252
Just eleven years later, in 1886, SCOTUS stated the RKBA predated the formation of the U.S. Government and the writing of the Constitution. SCOTUS further stated the RKBA wasn't dependent on the former entity or the latter document. In addition, SCOTUS stated the 2nd Amd was created to prevent the Federal Government and Congress from infringing on RKBA!
"....in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government..."
MURDOCK v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
www.constitution.org/ussc/319-105a.htm
In 1943 SCOTUS ruled that a right enumerated in the Constitution could not be licensed or taxed. Murdock was a Jehovah's Witness who preached in public and who also may've tresspassed to preach. The govt said Murdock needed to secure a Federal license and pay a Federal tax to preach. SCOTUS said otherwise, and ruled that a right recognized and so guaranteed by the Constitution could not be licensed or taxed. In this light, every single pistol permit licensing and fee scheme in all 50 states is unconstitutional. So would be any attempt by the Feds to implement a Fed licensing, registration, or taxation scheme. If only gun owners would come together and pool some funds, then every pistol permit scheme across the United States could be challenged as unconstitutional, based on the SCOTUS decision in Murdock.
"....a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.'"
Boyd v. US 116 US 616 -- The court is to protect against any encroachment of constitutionally secured rights.
and this..;
1963: GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT - The court found that Amendments that are, "fundamental safeguards of liberty" are immune from both federal and state "abridgment" under the "Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." GROSJEAN v. AMERICAN PRESS CO. and POWELL v. STATE OF ALABAMA are both cited.
Jojo i would like your personal opinion on this. Since you are better at legal terms than I.
discussion in Texas forum
i just wanted to copy a post from that forum over to here, and see what everyone thought.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105: "No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefore."
Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946 “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights."
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham Alabama, 373 US 262: "If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity."
i copied this from another site:
U.S. v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...l=92&invol=542
In 1875 SCOTUS ruled the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) is not dependent on the Constitution for it's validity, because that right existed before the writing of the Constitution. In further explanation, the court compared the 2nd Amd to right to free speech and worship and so noted free speech and freedom to worship existed long before the Constitution was written. Thus, the Court said, the RKBA was equal in status with the 1st Amd rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
"The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."
PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=116&invol=252
Just eleven years later, in 1886, SCOTUS stated the RKBA predated the formation of the U.S. Government and the writing of the Constitution. SCOTUS further stated the RKBA wasn't dependent on the former entity or the latter document. In addition, SCOTUS stated the 2nd Amd was created to prevent the Federal Government and Congress from infringing on RKBA!
"....in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government..."
MURDOCK v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
www.constitution.org/ussc/319-105a.htm
In 1943 SCOTUS ruled that a right enumerated in the Constitution could not be licensed or taxed. Murdock was a Jehovah's Witness who preached in public and who also may've tresspassed to preach. The govt said Murdock needed to secure a Federal license and pay a Federal tax to preach. SCOTUS said otherwise, and ruled that a right recognized and so guaranteed by the Constitution could not be licensed or taxed. In this light, every single pistol permit licensing and fee scheme in all 50 states is unconstitutional. So would be any attempt by the Feds to implement a Fed licensing, registration, or taxation scheme. If only gun owners would come together and pool some funds, then every pistol permit scheme across the United States could be challenged as unconstitutional, based on the SCOTUS decision in Murdock.
"....a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.'"
Boyd v. US 116 US 616 -- The court is to protect against any encroachment of constitutionally secured rights.
and this..;
1963: GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT - The court found that Amendments that are, "fundamental safeguards of liberty" are immune from both federal and state "abridgment" under the "Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." GROSJEAN v. AMERICAN PRESS CO. and POWELL v. STATE OF ALABAMA are both cited.
Jojo i would like your personal opinion on this. Since you are better at legal terms than I.
