Guy, That's one in a long list of reasons why people like myself (favoring some gun laws, against some, and agnostic on others) don't have any problem with the individual rights theory.
I don't have any serious fear that the Supremes are going to uphold private possession of Stinger missles. If the Supremes would just gut up and say that the Second Amendment means something, ANYTHING, we could get on with sorting out the policy issues instead of comparing two sets of hypothetical horribles--Stingers in every closet on one side and the loss of duck guns on the other side. Steve Russell > ---------- > From: Discussion list for firearms reg scholars on behalf of Guy Smith > Reply To: Discussion list for firearms reg scholars > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 1:18 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Constitutional rights and fees > > But this does bring up the corner case that is debated from time to time -- > that in he absence of a SC ruling affirming the 2nd Amendment as an > individual right, unchecked registration fees could be used as defacto gun > bans (i.e., jack the fee up so high that only the financial elite could > afford to own firearms). The courts seem willing to strike down high fees > for anything that smells of a constitutional right, and thus a SC ruling > affirming the individual rights theory would (a) take the registration fee > risk out of the debate and (b) make registration _almost_ palatable to gun > owners. > > -------------------- > Guy Smith > Silicon Strategies Marketing > 630 Taylor Avenue > Alameda, CA 94501 > 510-521-4477 (T) > 510-217-9693 (F) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.SiliconStrat.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Discussion list for firearms reg scholars > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Russell, Steve > > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 9:36 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Constitutional rights and fees > > > > > > Seems to me that an argument of reasonable relationship to the > > government's cost ought to have some traction. As a Texas judge, > > I could get my concealed carry permit at *actual* cost, whereas > > the average citizen pays much more. > > > > Court costs are generally subject to an affidavit of inability to > > pay, so nobody is denied access to the courts. > > > > I think some database searches on parade permits would show cases > > striking down large amounts. And some insurance requirements for > > public gatherings have been successfully attacked. > > > > Candidate filing fees are upheld where there is also ballot > > access by petition. > > > > All right, I'm in danger of violating the rules of discourse here > > by not doing the searches, but I'm reasonably sure that there is > > highly contested constitutional turf in charging fees for the > > exercise of constitutional rights, and that the government is on > > more solid ground when the fee can be related to an actual cost > > of service or there is an alternative to paying the fee. > > > > Steve Russell > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Discussion list for firearms reg scholars on behalf of > > Eugene Volokh > > Sent: Tue 10/21/2003 10:21 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: > > Subject: Constitutional rights and fees > > Q: on modes of Constitional registering of guns Courts have had to deal > > with a similar question related to whether the government may charge money > > for parade permits and for marriage licenses (the Court held in > > Zablocki v. > > Redhail that the right to marry is protected by the Constitution). Courts > > have generally upheld relatively modest fees in such cases. See, > > e.g., Cox > > v. New Hampshire (parade permit). But see Boynston v. Kusper, 112 Ill. 2d > > 356 (1986) (striking down marriage license fee -- the case seems to be an> > > outlier). > > > > Likewise, I'm pretty certain that people can be required to > > pay fees for > > exercising some procedural rights, such as the right to civil jury trial, > > though I'm not sure about that. Also, while there's a (limited) > > constitutional right to be a candidate, filing fees for candidates are > > generally constitutional, at least when there are waivers for indigent > > candidates (again, sorry I don't have a precise cite). > > > > Eugene > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joe Rickershauser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 11:07 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Q: on modes of Constitional registering of guns > > > > > > If it were decided that gun registration was not a violation of the > > Constitution, > > wouldn't that registration have to be free to the individual (as voting > > registration > > is) and not fee based (as automobile registration is)? > > > > --jcr > > > >
