-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
House votes to knock $60 off gun license fee
- Thread starter baran
- Start date
![[popcorn]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/043.gif "Popcorn [popcorn]")
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
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]
So yes... you are correct, it should be free.
Although (can't find the line in the million page breif) the SCOTUS did (in Heller) make mention of allowing for licensing... but the also (IIRC) referanced something to the effect of it being fair.
Now... IANAL, but I also believe that MA has somewhere that "Licensing Fees" can only be used to cover the cost of the actual processing of the license... not a means of income.
So, this may be one of those things that they are realizing that if push comes to shove, and the gun owners go after them, they can likely lose. So by dropping it to $40, they are tossing us a bone and maybe we won't push so much.
Ultimately... i think patrick is a moronic jackass and will be just arrogant enough to not care and keep pushing it, or at the very least, veto the reduction even if he knows and/or it is pointed out to him that the fee itself is illegal.
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]
So yes... you are correct, it should be free.
Although (can't find the line in the million page breif) the SCOTUS did (in Heller) make mention of allowing for licensing... but the also (IIRC) referanced something to the effect of it being fair.
Now... IANAL, but I also believe that MA has somewhere that "Licensing Fees" can only be used to cover the cost of the actual processing of the license... not a means of income.
So, this may be one of those things that they are realizing that if push comes to shove, and the gun owners go after them, they can likely lose. So by dropping it to $40, they are tossing us a bone and maybe we won't push so much.
Ultimately... i think patrick is a moronic jackass and will be just arrogant enough to not care and keep pushing it, or at the very least, veto the reduction even if he knows and/or it is pointed out to him that the fee itself is illegal.
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
![[cheers]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/018.gif "Cheers [cheers]")
Perhaps, just perhaps I might get an out of state MA license now. The $100 for 1 year was a big problem for me (on principle more than anything).
+1. Exactly what I was thinking.
It's a nice gesture, but has been pointed out, it's illegal to charge a fee for a liberty. We shouldn't stop until MAss is held accountable for this and we have something similar to NH.
what does that mean?
June4th
NES Member
Just sent this email to my Senator Brian Joyce:
Dear Senator Joyce,
I am one of your constituents living in Canton. I sent letter to you last week voicing my strong displeasure of Governor Patrick's proposal of raising the firearm licensing fees from $100 to $250 for a 6-year period.
I'm pleased to find out that the State House has responded to the pleas from gun owners like me and amended the bill to REDUCE the fee to $40 by a vote of 94-57. Now the bill is facing vote on the Senate floor.
I just called your office and left a message to voice my support for the House version of the bill. I hope that you will join your colleagues in the House to support reduction of the firearm licensing fees.
While I can tolerate nominal fees for the criminal background and processing fees for firearm licensing, the Governor's proposal of $250 would mean charging an unreasonable fee for a liberty and right protected by the US Constitution. The SCOTUS has ruled that:
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]
I strongly urge you to vote on this issue according to the stated rulings of the Supreme Court and your conscience.
Sincerely,
Dear Senator Joyce,
I am one of your constituents living in Canton. I sent letter to you last week voicing my strong displeasure of Governor Patrick's proposal of raising the firearm licensing fees from $100 to $250 for a 6-year period.
I'm pleased to find out that the State House has responded to the pleas from gun owners like me and amended the bill to REDUCE the fee to $40 by a vote of 94-57. Now the bill is facing vote on the Senate floor.
I just called your office and left a message to voice my support for the House version of the bill. I hope that you will join your colleagues in the House to support reduction of the firearm licensing fees.
While I can tolerate nominal fees for the criminal background and processing fees for firearm licensing, the Governor's proposal of $250 would mean charging an unreasonable fee for a liberty and right protected by the US Constitution. The SCOTUS has ruled that:
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]
I strongly urge you to vote on this issue according to the stated rulings of the Supreme Court and your conscience.
Sincerely,
It means no changes to licensing fees if the Guvna signs it as is.
So it won't get lowered?
Correct.
But . . . usually if the House and Senate pass different versions of a bill, it goes to a Conference Committee to hash out the differences (this is where the Ch. 180 bill got totally re-written) and then gets voted on again in both chambers.
Not sure, given the short time on what they will do however.
Not sure, given the short time on what they will do however.
pdm
NES Member
Which amendment? There were two: one reducing the Governor's proposed fee from $200 to $100 (Guyer amendment: back to current levels) and a second to reduce it from $100 to $40 (Peterson amendment). Now I'm confused.
[edit]
If they passed it sans amendments, that means the Senate put us in for the $200 fee, right?
They did NOT pass the higher fees.
http://www.masslive.com/metrowest/republican/index.ssf?/base/news-2/121740218825080.xml&coll=1
"House leaders stripped out the governor's proposed fee increases before the bill reached the floor for a vote."
http://www.masslive.com/metrowest/republican/index.ssf?/base/news-2/121740218825080.xml&coll=1
"House leaders stripped out the governor's proposed fee increases before the bill reached the floor for a vote."
Last edited:
My Senator's office called me after the vote. The told me my Senator did not support the Peterson Amendment, but didn't support the Governor's proposed increase either, and it passed the Senate with fees remaining at $100.
That's all I know.
pdm
NES Member
That's the House, we were on to what the Senate was doing with it.
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
I hope this was a roll call vote. I want to see if my Senator was even there.
Similar threads
