PDA

View Full Version : Potential for challenge of "fees"


harbinger007
02-04-2011, 1:57 PM
The California Farm Bureau Federation and others had challenged the fees being charged by California's Division of Water Rights to the California Supreme Court. I don't can't find the CFBF's article online (in print in their AgAlert I received yesterday), but an article covers the pertinent information at http://www.stoel.com/showalert.aspx?Show=7420.

From the AgAlert Article:
The court ruled that the statute mandating the fees did not explicitly impose a "tax" but did direct the Court of Appeal to return the case to the trial court to make detailed findings on whether the fees set by the water board were reasonably related to the costs of its regulatory activity. "What a fee cannot do is exceedd the reasonable cost of regulation with the generated surplus used to generate revenue collection. An excessive fee that is used to generate general revenue becomes a tax," the justices wrote.

Because of all the time spent by many Sheriff departments in issuing a CCW, a fee of $100 might be considered a reasonable fee, though I would think they can do it for less if they were just complying with the PC and not adding more work. I can't really imagine that a LiveScan background check costs $122 to perform. I realize that these aren't the top priorities of CGF right now, but thought I'd bring out this latest court ruling in the event it might be used to challenge fees imposed on people exercising their 2A rights.

Doheny
02-04-2011, 2:01 PM
I think we had a similar post not too long ago...but you do bring up an interesting point!

N6ATF
02-04-2011, 2:20 PM
I think I've been reading that some of the CCW fees nationwide are doing the opposite of generating general revenue, in other words, they're not high enough to be revenue neutral. That would pose a problem if that is our legal argument.
The political argument is "why have the procedure at all if it is wasting money?"
The moral argument is "why deny people their right to self-defense if they can't afford the infringement fees?"

XDshooter
02-04-2011, 2:26 PM
I say give CA at most $5, and let the FFL keep the rest.

harbinger007
02-04-2011, 2:36 PM
I think I've been reading that some of the CCW fees nationwide are doing the opposite of generating general revenue, in other words, they're not high enough to be revenue neutral. That would pose a problem if that is our legal argument.
The political argument is "why have the procedure at all if it is wasting money?"
The moral argument is "why deny people their right to self-defense if they can't afford the infringement fees?"

This is a California Supreme Court ruling so I'm just talking about California fees. Here a CCW costs $100 plus the LiveScan which I paid $122 for.

I think I read somewhere like Oklahoma charges $10 for a CCW fee. If their authorities want to raise it a bit, I don't think there's a big problem with that.

bwiese
02-04-2011, 2:39 PM
1. Let's get the CCW fees fixed to what they are on the books -regardless of high, medium or low. That can condition response to other CCW-related
problems.

2. Let's get actual general CCW issuance fixed FIRST regardless of fees.

3. Actual fee matters can then be taken on after CCW fixed. Don't let
worry about the nickels get in the way of the main problem.

Crom
02-04-2011, 2:46 PM
Yeah one step at a time.



Secure the right to legally carry in public through the courts.
Then challenging the fees with more litigation.

If Utah can do a 5 year license for $65.00 and FL can do one for 7 years at $117.00 California should be able to at least the same.

wildhawker
02-04-2011, 2:47 PM
1. Let's get the CCW fees fixed to what they are on the books -regardless of high, medium or low. That can condition response to other CCW-related problems.

2. Let's get actual general CCW issuance fixed FIRST regardless of fees.

3. Actual fee matters can then be taken on after CCW fixed. Don't let worry about the nickels get in the way of the main problem.

Indeed, and everyone should also consider that CCW costs at the state level may also be subsidized by the DROS fund surplus.

The path to fee correction is a) initially via statutory compliance, and b) later, through constitutional law.

harbinger007
02-04-2011, 2:54 PM
Bill and Brandon, I did note in my first post that I realized this wasn't a top priority right now. I guess I'll go back and bold that part.

Still, after the other things are fixed, I thought this case would be a useful basis for getting fees adjusted.

wildhawker
02-04-2011, 3:14 PM
Bill and Brandon, I did note in my first post that I realized this wasn't a top priority right now. I guess I'll go back and bold that part.

Still, after the other things are fixed, I thought this case would be a useful basis for getting fees adjusted.

While additional state-level precedent for the nature of fees may be in some ways useful, the 'real' fee challenge(s) after securing "bear" at the USSC will be matters of US conlaw using other permitted constitutional rights as guideposts.