Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
I have read Murdock v PA and understand that decision - to paraphrase - that a state, or local governmental body can license (regulate) HOW a fundamental substantive right is actually exercised IF A COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST exists as long as the licensing process is not capricious, and does not systematically suppress the exercise of a given right. Also - that any FEE charged for such a license must only serve to offset the cost of administering the licensing/regulatory program , and not constitute a source of general revenue.
Most state "shall issue" CCW licensing statutes appear to be consistent with this standard presented in Murdock v PA.
That's what I took away from reading the decision.
Thank you for that. I agree.
Last edited: