Licensing a constitutional right

[paperwork351]

Listened to the MSI/Hogan HQL feed.

No one mentions Murdock vs Pennsylvania 1st Amendment case "No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor." --Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105, US Supreme Court. (1943)

The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. --Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573. (1944)

 

[FrankZ]

People are still getting used to the rights protected by the second amendment not being second hand rights.

 

[Some Guy]

I'm not familiar with these cases. I would be interested in hearing what some of the attorneys or other experts say about this, though.

 

[rambling_one]

Listened to the MSI/Hogan HQL feed.

No one mentions Murdock vs Pennsylvania 1st Amendment case "No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor." --Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105, US Supreme Court. (1943)

The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. --Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573. (1944)

Were these cases referenced in the Bruen decision? Sounds clear cut to me.

 

[owldo]

Listened to the MSI/Hogan HQL feed.

No one mentions Murdock vs Pennsylvania 1st Amendment case "No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor." --Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105, US Supreme Court. (1943)

The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. --Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573. (1944)

Someone should file a complaint with the DOJ Civil Rights Division for injunctive relief for Unconstitutional Violation of 2nd Amendment Rights !

 

[dblas]

Listened to the MSI/Hogan HQL feed.

No one mentions Murdock vs Pennsylvania 1st Amendment case "No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor." --Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105, US Supreme Court. (1943)

The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. --Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573. (1944)

If the argument was not brought up in the initial case at the district level, then the issue cannot be addd at litigated at the next and higher level. This has been discussed ad nauseum over the many threads of the various federal cases here.

Plus Murdock v PA applies to the 1st Amendment, but is very hard to apply to the second Amendment:

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/does-murdock-v-pennsylvania-apply-to-the-second-am-3135487.html

 

[dblas]

I'm not familiar with these cases. I would be interested in hearing what some of the attorneys or other experts say about this, though.

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/does-murdock-v-pennsylvania-apply-to-the-second-am-3135487.html

 

[dblas]

Were these cases referenced in the Bruen decision? Sounds clear cut to me.

No, they weren't, because they do not apply to the 2nd Amndment.

 

[Nobody]

They are aware
They don't care

Nobody

 

[paperwork351]

No, they weren't, because they do not apply to the 2nd Amndment.

If the argument was not brought up in the initial case at the district level, then the issue cannot be addd at litigated at the next and higher level. This has been discussed ad nauseum over the many threads of the various federal cases here.

Plus Murdock v PA applies to the 1st Amendment, but is very hard to apply to the second Amendment:

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/does-murdock-v-pennsylvania-apply-to-the-second-am-3135487.html

Your avvo link is broken. Wanna try again? May have been the prevailing view at one time but McDonald incorporated the BOR upon the states.

 

[GTOGUNNER]

Your avvo link is broken. Wanna try again? May have been the prevailing view at one time but McDonald incorporated the BOR upon the states.

Don’t bother its more like a reddit post. Amateur lawyers on MDS have better posts.

 

[Some Guy]

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/does-murdock-v-pennsylvania-apply-to-the-second-am-3135487.html

Thanks.

 

[dblas]

Don’t bother its more like a reddit post. Amateur lawyers on MDS have better posts.

LOL, not a reddit post at all, but a question posed to an actual legal forum, answered by lawyers.

 

[dblas]

Your avvo link is broken. Wanna try again? May have been the prevailing view at one time but McDonald incorporated the BOR upon the states.

Look at it on a computer, not a phone. And the view still holds today even after McDonald.

 

[paperwork351]

avvo doesn't like my vpn. not turning it off. Is the copyright timeframe before or after Mcdonald? The collective view has been in place for so long. What are the cliff notes?

 

[dblas]

avvo doesn't like my vpn. not turning it off. Is the copyright timeframe before or after Mcdonald? The collective view has been in place for so long. What are the cliff notes?

Question was asked in 2017.
Cliff notes are what I wrote above, Murdock v PA applies to 1st Amendment and not to the others since the question was narrowly on the application of license to exercise the 1st Amendment. In order for Murdock to apply to the 2nd Amendment, a similar suit would have to be brought against licensing the 2nd Amendment. SCOTUS rulings re very narrow, and are only directly applicable to the right argued. Can it be cited in other arguments, yes, but since 1944 SCOTUS has ruled that states can tax a right, and states can charge an administrative fee to exercise a right (i.e. application and fee to have a public demonstration).
Alan Gottleib has stated that Murdock is not helpful/useful in fighting license fees on any 2nd Amendment Right, and that specific suits need to be brought against said licenses and fees to defeat them.

 

[paperwork351]

Ok, narrow ruling. I didn't know that. Civil Rights Act 1964 wouldn't apply either i.e poll taxes or written tests.
Discussed ad nauseum?

 

[Inigoes]

Question was asked in 2017.
Cliff notes are what I wrote above, Murdock v PA applies to 1st Amendment and not to the others since the question was narrowly on the application of license to exercise the 1st Amendment. In order for Murdock to apply to the 2nd Amendment, a similar suit would have to be brought against licensing the 2nd Amendment. SCOTUS rulings re very narrow, and are only directly applicable to the right argued. Can it be cited in other arguments, yes, but since 1944 SCOTUS has ruled that states can tax a right, and states can charge an administrative fee to exercise a right (i.e. application and fee to have a public demonstration).
Alan Gottleib has stated that Murdock is not helpful/useful in fighting license fees on any 2nd Amendment Right, and that specific suits need to be brought against said licenses and fees to defeat them.

Yet, they can't tax the right to vote. Harper v. Virginia 1966

Seems there are inconsistencies among the fundemental rights.

 

[teratos]

Yet, they can't tax the right to vote. Seems there are inconsistencies among the fundemental rights.

Yep.

 

[RFBfromDE]

Yet, they can't tax the right to vote. Seems there are inconsistencies among the fundemental rights.

Some rights appear more equal than others.