I also agree. There are several examples of it being unconstitutional to charge a fee or have a license in order to exercise an in-specific constitutional right.srothstein wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:35 pmI agree. I think the next case will be about license at all. The concept of a license to exercise a right does not meet with Thomas's historical analysis specified as the way to check the 2A cases. The next case may be about reciprocity, but it would be just as easy to argue no license anywhere, constitutional carry for all.
Including: like Murdock v. Pennsylvania :: 319 US 105 (1943)?
"A municipal ordinance which, as construed and applied, requires religious colporteurs to pay a license tax as a condition to the pursuit of their activities, is invalid under the Federal Constitution as a denial of freedom of speech, press and religion"
Or MUCH more recently: BARRY BAUER, v. XAVIER BECERRA
"Across constitutional rights, the courts
have consistently forbidden the use of special
fees and taxes on constitutionally protected
conduct to generate general revenue"
Or at one of the earliest decisions affecting the scope of constitutional rights:
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
"that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
Constitutional Carry has been, should always have been, and should continue to be the CONSTITUTIONAL basis of carry in the US. The amount of contention here and on other forums to constitutional carry has been shown to be without merit but also we have to examine the fact that it never should have been restricted. "The first Texas law against concealed and open carry was “An Act to Regulate the Keeping and Bearing of Deadly Weapons, Law of April 12, 1871, Ch. 34, §1, 1871 Tex. Gen. Laws 25” passed as part of the Reconstruction. That law was not substantially modified until 1995." https://txhga.org/texas-ltc-information ... gun-carry/
I also consider it unconstitutional to require licenses or fees for other constitutionally protected rights (such as permits for protests or public speaking....) provided that the manner in which such actions take place do not interfere with the rights of others (IE blocking roadways or substantially blocking paths).
Its going to be very interesting seeing how this plays out, but I really expect that we will see the left try to "normalize" packing the supreme court and then try (or succeed) in doing so.