Two Ohioans Sue Over State’s Concealed Handgun License Fee

courtesy hcso.org

Two residents of Hamilton County, Ohio have sued the Hamilton County Sheriff and the county prosecutor over the fee charged to apply for a concealed carry permit. The two are also challenging Ohio’s prohibition against carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle within easy reach of the driver.

Jeff Daly says he lives in a dangerous neighborhood and wants to be able to have a loaded gun in his car for self protection.

He said in the complaint that it if it weren’t for Ohio law, he would carry a pistol while driving his vehicle to protect himself and his family. Daly said he has not done so because he fears prosecution and arrest.

But to carry in a vehicle, Daly needs a concealed handgun license.

Charles Jarvis is confined to a wheelchair and, according to the complaint, qualifies for Social Security and lives in poverty. Both attempted to apply for concealed carry licenses but were told by the Hamilton County Sheriff’s office that they have to pay a fee. Only current and retired law enforcement officers can get one at no cost.

Their suit argues that under the provisions of Heller v. DC, they have an individual right to possess and carry firearms. And as their attorney noted . . .

“(T)he state cannot charge a fee to exercise a fundamental right.”

“There is no alternative but to pay the fee to exercise that right in a private automobile.  Thus the imposition of the fee is unconstitutional,” he said.

Government entities nationwide charge fees to process concealed carry licenses. Those fees impact the poor disproportionately and could probably the basis for a challenge if set unreasonably high (whatever that may mean is open to interpretation and, possibly, judicial review.

Ohio’s CHL fee is $67. Higher than some, but lower than many. While we don’t expect them to prevail, we certainly wish the plaintiffs well.

 

comments

  1. avatar TexTed says:

    The left has (outrageously) successfully blocked voter ID laws under the basis that it disenfranchises an extremely tiny percentage of the poor from being able to exercise their fundamental right to vote.

    Seems like the same logic should apply here.

    1. avatar Baldwin says:

      Bwahaha! You said “…logic should apply…”

      1. avatar 41mag says:

        Yea, where’s the logic behind this:

        States deny Citizens their natural right, then force Citizens to pay to exercise their natural right.

    2. avatar billy-bob says:

      Which is really absurd when you consider the gov requires a valid ID to dispense to the poor those ‘freebies’ the left lobbies so hard for.

    3. avatar That One Guy says:

      The crazy thing is….nobody can ever seem to find any registered voter who cannot obtain a valid ID. Thousands of people will rant and rave about how many people are hurt by Voter ID laws, and yet…NOBODY has ever been proved to have been disenfranchised by a constitutionally valid ID law.

      Meanwhile, those same thousands of people will likely argue that keeping and bearing arms is not a right, and if it is, it can only be exercised after asking the government for permission and paying the government for the opportunity.

      fun fact: There is no right to vote in the constitution. There IS a right to keep and bear arms in the constitution.

  2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    The second amendment requires no fee to exercise it,none of the Bill of Rights do.

    1. avatar Sich says:

      Hate to say it, but it’s not exactly true! It’s a variation of a State Sale Tax which con be traced to Colonial America to 1767. As the “Townshend Act” or Every Day Living Tax. It was slowly phased out by most of the United States in the 1840’s. But some States still use them to generate revenue. Which also applies to the Bill of Rights. While the First Amendment promotes Free Speech, you still have to buy the Newspaper, Radio, TV, Computer, etc. to access the Free Speech.

      1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

        No, it IS exactly true. Rights have no cost and asking a fee to exercise one is infringement.

        1. avatar Sich says:

          You have the Right to own a Handgun, but the State isn’t required to give you a handgun. You have the Right to live in a house, as long as you have the money to buy one.

        2. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          Purchasing something is a convenience, not a requirement.

      2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        “First Amendment promotes Free Speech, you still have to buy the Newspaper, Radio, TV, Computer, etc. to access the Free Speech.”

        No purchase necessary to exercise ones voice.

        1. avatar Sich says:

          So go into a Gun Store and get a gun, then leave without paying for it. Your “Right” right.

        2. avatar Dane says:

          As someone once said, there is a difference between free speech and free beer.

        3. avatar Toni says:

          all those sources are provided by businesses who have to cover cost of equipment and maintenance and wages. it does not stop you getting up in the town square and having your say there. a govt permit to do so would. the bill of rights was limits on what the GOVERNMENT itself should have any say over. as for the mainstream media being a source of free speech, not so much these days as most of it is crap and drivel with little meat of what is actually going on in the local area, country or world.
          having to get permits for a protest rally is a limit on free speech. again who do you pay for those permits and who issues them…. GOVERNMENT!!!!

  3. avatar Sich says:

    I’m suspecting that this has to do something on HR.38: Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of January 3rd, 2017? If so, the US House of Representative passed the Act in December 16th, 2017. The US Senate has read it twice, but have “Not” acted on the Act. So the Act is in Perpetual Limbo for the foreseeable future.

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      Why would it have anything to do with that?

      1. avatar Sich says:

        I didn’t know if it did or didn’t! I was making a guess.

  4. avatar anonymoose says:

    About 3 years ago, Kasich and his pals in the statehouse said they were going to give us Constitutional Carry and a bypass of NICS checks for anyone with a CHL. And we’re still where we were 3 years ago (maybe even moving a little bit backwards with certain stupid cities trying to go against the preemption law recently).

  5. avatar Texican says:

    Their lawyer is correct. What other right do you have to pay a fee to exercise? That would be none! Constitutional carry for everyone! 😉

    1. avatar Nanashi says:

      Right to an attorney if the government deems you well off enough (a low hurdle)

    2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Correct !

      Anyone ever hear of a poll tax and it’s Constitutionality or Not.

      Kasich is a RINO of the first order

    3. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “Their lawyer is correct. What other right do you have to pay a fee to exercise?”

      How about the right to free speech?

      Example – Announce you are holding a 50-state carry rally in Washington, DC on a Sunday in July. You call for *thousands* to show up and exercise some ‘good-old style American’ free speech.

      DC *will* require you to PAY for permit to stage that rally.

      The conditions you will be required to follow to have that rally will likely include things like *paying* for a certain number of portable toilets, overtime for the police, and whatnot.

      Now, what was that you were you saying about “What other right do you have to pay a fee to exercise?”

      Well?…

      1. avatar Toni says:

        as i said before that in itself is a restriction on free speech. the bill of rights is supposed to be there to limit the govt in putting ANY restrictions on any of those items contained in it. in the original drawing up of the BOR there were from what i have hears about 180 items that were condensed down to the 10. personally i would love to see what the rest of them were

        1. avatar Sich says:

          Two “Nearly Verbatum” copies of the June 8th, 1789, Master Draft in George Mason’s handwriting were made. One exists in the George Mason Papers at the Library of Congress in Washington, DC. and the other at the Lamb Papers at the New York Historical Society in New York City, NY. Or it can be downloaded through ( http://www.constitution.org/gmason/amd_gmas.htm ) .

        2. avatar Toni says:

          thankyou for that Sich

        3. avatar Sich says:

          No problem…

  6. avatar little horn says:

    pfft its $120 in arkansas just for the submitting the application.

    1. avatar Jon in CO says:

      Ours is $60 for the permit itself, and $52.50 for CBI to check you out. The renewal is just the $52.50 for another BGC every 5 years. Ridiculous? Perhaps, but it could be worse. At $10~/year, I don’t think it’s terrible.

  7. avatar Bloving says:

    Here. Cut, copy and paste this on every comments section you find it to be applicable:
    If we can all agree that:
    1. Self defense against any unlawful attack is a basic human right.
    2. That as a basic human right, self defense is and should always be considered a Civil Right of the People and thus the exercise of that right must be immune from restriction, infringement, licensing or taxation by Government at any level.
    3. That the Civil Rights of the People are not subject to the approval of the Majority Opinion and belong to every Individual regardless of their social status.
    4. That any infringement, restriction, licensing requirements or taxation levied on the free exercise of a Civil Right is a violation of that right.
    5. That any law, policy or rule that prohibits or discourages the free exercise of any Civil Right is an infringement on that right.
    6. That if a law, policy or rule that prohibits or discourages a Citizen from legally acquiring the tools, weapons or means to freely exercise their Civil Rights, then their rights have been infringed.
    -Then it follows that those who advocate for the preservation of the right of the People to keep and bear arms are, in fact, Civil Rights advocates. It also follows that those who oppose the right of the People to keep and bear arms are against the People’s civil rights.
    We have a word for people who advocate for or try to use the force of law to infringe on the civil rights of others: we call them Bigots. 🤠

    1. avatar Toni says:

      i agree with all bar the last sentence….. i call them worse than bigots, i call the traitors to liberty

    2. avatar cisco kid says:

      to Bloving

      quote————————————————————–Here. Cut, copy and paste this on every comments section you find it to be applicable:
      If we can all agree that:
      1. Self defense against any unlawful attack is a basic human right.
      2. That as a basic human right, self defense is and should always be considered a Civil Right of the People and thus the exercise of that right must be immune from restriction, infringement, licensing or taxation by Government at any level.
      3. That the Civil Rights of the People are not subject to the approval of the Majority Opinion and belong to every Individual regardless of their social status.
      4. That any infringement, restriction, licensing requirements or taxation levied on the free exercise of a Civil Right is a violation of that right.
      5. That any law, policy or rule that prohibits or discourages the free exercise of any Civil Right is an infringement on that right.
      6. That if a law, policy or rule that prohibits or discourages a Citizen from legally acquiring the tools, weapons or means to freely exercise their Civil Rights, then their rights have been infringed.
      -Then it follows that those who advocate for the preservation of the right of the People to keep and bear arms are, in fact, Civil Rights advocates. It also follows that those who oppose the right of the People to keep and bear arms are against the People’s civil rights.
      We have a word for people who advocate for or try to use the force of law to infringe on the civil rights of others: we call them Bigots————————————————————————————————————————————quote———————————

      Like most Right Wingers you live in a fantasy world.

      Lets bring you down to the planet earth and reality.

      The only right you have and that includes all the American people are rights that the “Ruling Elite” give you. Your Constitution is as worthless as a used piece of toilet paper and always has been. And yes public opinion has a lot to do in regards to what rights you have and what rights you have lost and will continue to lose. The other factor is that the ruling elite control their well armed brainwashed power mad henchmen and the ruling elite make rules that keep “them” safe but not you, its one of the primary reasons for more and more gun ban laws. Gun ban laws have nothing to do with making you safer or the public safer rather it has everything to do with making the “ruling elite” safer and they use mass shootings as the excuse to do what they have wanted to do for decades and that is disarm you.

      The Corrupt Courts do indeed rule with public opinion and although I could quote you pages of facts to prove the point one of the most glaring just to name one of hundreds was the imprisonment of 100,000 Japanese Americans in WWII who lost their homes and businesses as well as their freedom. I could go on and on but you get the picture on the Government ruling with public opinion and the Courts blessing it. Again take the Constitution and wipe your ass with it.

      I always have a good laugh when I hear people quoting the Constitution that is a document that is wort less than the paper it is printed on.

      As one poster said years ago “The Constitution does not mean what it says it means, rather the Constitution means what the corrupt Courts say it means”. And I might add you are the one that always comes out the loser and they make sure they come out as the winners.

  8. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    This case will be interesting. Courts have almost always taken the position that ONLY OPEN CARRY is a basic civil right and concealed carry is a “privilege” — thus allowing for states to charge fees for the “PRIVILEGE” of concealed carry.

    The real problem is that our courts largely don’t care about what is right, just, and true. Rather, the courts are mainly concerned with precedent and government priorities.

    If the courts actually cared about what is right, just, and true, the legal argument for fee-free concealed carry is exceedingly simple:
    — EFFECTIVE self-defense is an inalienable right
    — people must be able to possess EFFECTIVE self-defense tools
    — people must be able to employ EFFECTIVE self-defense methods
    — concealed carry is often the ONLY EFFECTIVE carry method
    — therefore government cannot charge a fee to carry concealed firearms

  9. avatar davida says:

    I agree . And concealed carry is the only one that allows some ‘ protection ‘ to the unarmed as well as the armed. It is there fore in every ones interest that concealed carry be the norm.

  10. avatar Cucamonga Jeff says:

    A CCW in San Bernardino county gonna run you about $600 after the back round check, mental health evaluation, fingerprint fees, range qualification, mandatory trainingand interview

  11. avatar Hannibal says:

    ““(T)he state cannot charge a fee to exercise a fundamental right…”

    Then why did there need to be a Constitutional Amendment to end poll-taxes?

    1. avatar Toni says:

      there should rightly have been a amendment in the bill of rights against taxation. i would suggest that the govt be limited to import and export duties and not allowed to borrow from banks. in case you are forgetting the boston tea party was about taxation the british placed on tea that the founders deemed excessive

    2. avatar That One Guy says:

      because amendments gradually make the change from “we hold these truths to be self evident” to “really? I guess we’ll have to spell it out for you” thanks to the neverending overreach of an expansive federal power.

  12. avatar sound awake says:

    they would never ever charge a woman a fee for a license to excercise her “14th amendment right”

    why so with the 2nd

    the AMENDMENT ITSELF is the license

    remember the 14th does in about a week what the 2nd does in about a year

  13. avatar Gun Owning American says:

    Godspeed, gentlemen.

  14. avatar Geoff PR says:

    This is good, keep feeding 2A cases like these into the legal pipeline, in a few years when it gets to SCOTUS, we may have a court sympathetic to granting cert. for it. (Thomas certainly seems eager to ‘take a swing’ at one.)

    My hat is off and my heartfelt thanks extended to all of these folks spending their valuable time and treasure to secure our rights…

  15. avatar Darkwing says:

    What government gives, government can take away. Why is there a picture of a group of smiling Gestapo and not the people who filed. I have a right of self defense and to protect myself, I do not need government permission.

  16. avatar RetMSgt in Pa. says:

    “Only current and retired law enforcement officers can get one at no cost.” Some animals are more equal than others? I thought law enforcement officers could already carry concealed, nationwide, under LEOSA. What do they need an Ohio CCP for, much less a FREE one?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email