concealed license law unconstitutional?

[frankie_the_yankee]

in a quote from the original post at the top of this thread:

"The USSC opinion clearly states that 'A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution."

I think that "concealed", and "bear" are the items at issue here.

It is not clear for instance, that SCOTUS will find, in Heller or in some future case, that carrying concealed is a part of the "right to bear" that shall not be infringed. Or that requiring a license is an infringement. Many state constitutions state explicitly that their RKBA does not cover carrying concealed. SCOTUS could cite this, rightly or wrongly IMO, as representing a major school of thought at the time.

We don't even know at this point if they will recognize open carry (of a loaded gun) outside of the home as any sort fundamental right. In fact, my guess is that they won't. The whole thing is a touchy issue for The Court since long ago open carry was widely accepted while concealed carry was regarded with suspicion - the act of a criminal type as it were. Today, the level of acceptance is reversed, where CC is fairly well accepted while OC is less well accepted.

Up until now, there has certainly been no case law establishing, at the federal level, that carrying concealed is a constitutional right. So I do not see how a CHL law would be overturned whether for imposing a fee or for any other reason.

There are still some jurisdictions that currently ban both OC and CC. I am aware of no successful challenge to any of these laws. A good number of other jurisdictions greatly restrict OC and CC (i.e. the "may issue states for instance). None of these laws have been successfully challenged either as far as I know, and certainly not on federal 2A grounds.

My home state, RI, even has a state constitution provision that reads, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Pretty clear, right? Yet RI is a "may issue" state with highly restrictive gun control laws that are not about to change any time soon. And people have challenged the may issue law, and lost. (A couple of people won partial victories in getting permits issued by the city or town they lived in. But the state level may issue law remains on the books, while the city level shall issue law continues to be ignored by the big city mayors and chiefs.)

[anygunanywhere]

Based on decisions that SCOTUS has issued in my lifetime my opinion is that if you actually believe that the SCOTUS will ever actually determine consistently whether any law is constitutional based on the actual meaning and intent of the Constitution and BOR then you live in a dream world.

SCOTUS is another branch of the federal government, the third branch that has exceeded it's authority as defined by the Constitution, and by far the one that we, the PEOPLE have absolutely no control over other than the obvious.

We might benefit from Heller. We will never have our full rights returned. Too many sheep are oblivious to where their rights have gone. SCOTUS will toss us a few bones.

Anygun

[DKSuddeth]

If I understand DKSuddeth's original point, to wit "The USSC opinion clearly states that 'A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution," then what he is saying is that the Texas CHL law is unconstitutional because it charges a fee for the CHL. Hey, I'd be happy if the CHL were free, just fill in the forms and send'em in, but the chances of dumping the fee altogether are... well, ever hear of the Chance brothers? Fat and No?

I would be interested to see if it really costs $140 to process a CHL application tho.

elb

this is mostly my point, but as a member of TXCDL, I'm in the push for decriminalizing open carry. Some states have had weapons convictions overturned because of the issue of not providing for forms of carry that don't require 'fees' or licenses, so my thinking is that as long as open carry is criminalized making concealed carry the only viable option and that no state may charge a license or tax for federally protected rights, that the license law as it stands is unconstitutional. A case where a person is carrying without a license could force the legislature to decriminalize open carry to provide for the right without a 'fee'.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Based on decisions that SCOTUS has issued in my lifetime my opinion is that if you actually believe that the SCOTUS will ever actually determine consistently whether any law is constitutional based on the actual meaning and intent of the Constitution and BOR then you live in a dream world.
Anygun

The way you phrased it above, I have to agree.

The current Court consists of 4 more-or-less Originalists, 4 self-styled philosopher-kings, and 1 confused individual who often seems to wonder out loud who he is and what he is doing there.

The prior Court had 3 more-or-less Originalists, 4 self-styled philosopher-kings, and 2 confused individuals.

As such, the Court gets it right a bit more often now than it did before, but the philosopher-kings still win out much too often for my taste.