It shouldn’t cost anything to exercise a protected right, Yet some states and cities believe it’s okay to demand large amounts of money when it comes to your Second Amendment rights. In their eyes, the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege, granted or withdrawn by the state at its pleasure.
For example, New York City requires a permit to purchase and possess.The total cost of compliance adds $528.25 to the cost of the pistol. In Newark, New Jersey, it’s $325; in Boston, it’s $225. There are also periods of 30-60 days to get approval. Massachusetts requires citizens to get a license to carry in order to possess a handgun in the home.
This is anathema to the entire concept of rights. As the U.S. Supreme Court said in over a century ago in United States v. Cruikshank, “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.”
While the court’s ruling in Cruikshank said the Second Amendment applied only to the federal government, the court later ruled it was binding on the states as it was incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment by Due Process in McDonald v. City of Chicago.
Some years ago, various states imposed poll taxes on citizens’ right to vote. Those were outlawed when the Twenty-Fourth Amendment was ratified in 1964. The amendment applied to both the federal and state governments.
It’s not just these cities. Baltimore, Maryland demands the taking of a course and payment of fees to purchase a handgun. The total of these costs is roughly $265.
There are no fees or other costs required to exercise the rights protected by the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, or any of the other enumerated rights included in the Bill of Rights. In addition, these levies are discriminatory, impacting citizens in lower-income categories and depriving them of equal access to the right of self-defense.
We already know the police do not have a constitutional duty to protect an individual citizen, even when that individual has a protective order in place. We also already know of one case in New Jersey where “a right delayed” became a life denied. There are likely others.
The Illinois law which requires a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card to possess a firearm in the home was once again declared unconstitutional last month (People of the State of Illinois v. Vivian Claudine Brown) even though the cost is just ten dollars. If this is so, how can New York City’s demand for $528.24 to do exactly the same thing pass constitutional muster?
Protests the states need to protect public safety from people who shouldn’t have guns are absurd. We already have federal laws 18 U.S. Code §922 that delineate the prohibitions on firearm possession. Under the Supremacy Clause, the federal definitions should outrank any additional state disqualifiers.
There is already a national instant background check system and states have similar systems to allow law enforcement officers to quickly check individuals during a traffic stop. Between the two, there should be no need for bureaucratic delays of up to a month or more.
Obviously, a challenge to all permits to simply purchase or possess is going to draw vigorous opposition. Furthermore, federal judicial circuits containing the worst offenders are unlikely to favor plaintiffs. This means the challenge needs to go all the way to the Supreme Court. It might be best to file suits in the First, Second, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits in hopes the Supreme Court will consolidate them.
