The Second Amendment is clear: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Notice what it does not say. It does not say “shall not be infringed unless the government needs revenue.” It does not say “shall not be infringed by those who can afford a processing fee.” Yet for decades, federal and state governments have done exactly that—imposing taxes on firearms, ammunition, suppressors, and short-barreled rifles, while charging “permit fees” just to exercise the right to carry or even own a gun.
These financial burdens are not minor administrative details. They are direct infringements on a fundamental constitutional right. And thanks to a series of Supreme Court precedents—most recently NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022)—they are ripe for challenge.
The Bruen Framework: History, Not Balancing
In Bruen, the Supreme Court rejected the old “means-end” interest-balancing tests that lower courts used to uphold nearly any gun regulation. Now, the only question that matters is whether a modern regulation is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Taxes and fees on the exercise of Second Amendment rights have no such tradition. In fact, the historical record points in the opposite direction: early America often required militia-eligible men to own firearms and ammunition, and governments sometimes subsidized the poor to ensure compliance.
There is no Founding-era analogue for making law-abiding citizens pay the government for permission to exercise a pre-existing right.
Minneapolis Star: No Special Taxes on Constitutional Rights
In Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue (1983), the Supreme Court struck down a special “use tax” on ink and paper that targeted newspapers. The Court held that “differential taxation” of activities protected by the First Amendment—especially when it singles out a small group—is presumptively unconstitutional.
The parallel to the Second Amendment is obvious. The National Firearms Act’s $200 tax stamps on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and other items are nothing more than a differential tax on the exercise of a constitutional right. As with the ink-and-paper tax in Minneapolis Star, the NFA tax singles out Second Amendment activity for special financial punishment.
Harper: Poll Taxes on Fundamental Rights Are Dead
In Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966), the Supreme Court invalidated even a modest $1.50 poll tax, declaring that the government cannot condition the exercise of a constitutional right—voting—on the payment of a fee. As constitutional scholar Mark W. Smith has emphasized, the principle applies with equal force to the right to keep and bear arms. If a tiny tax cannot be required to vote, how can a $200 tax—or a $50 concealed-carry permit fee—be required to bear arms?
Murdock and Shuttlesworth: You Can’t Charge for Rights
Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) is unequivocal: “A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.” There, the Court struck down a license tax on distributing religious literature. Concealed-carry permit fees, fingerprinting charges, training mandates, and renewal costs are modern equivalents—financial preconditions on a fundamental right.
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham (1969) reinforced the point, invalidating permit schemes that imposed fees and discretionary hurdles on First Amendment activities. The Court rejected the excuse that these were mere “administrative costs.” If payment is required before you can exercise the right, it is unconstitutional.
Broader Protection Under Bruen: “Arms” Include More Than Just Guns
As Mark W. Smith has highlighted, Bruen’s plain-text analysis protects any “bearable arms”—defined as instruments that facilitate armed self-defense. That includes not just firearms, but ammunition, standard-capacity magazines, and even suppressors (hearing-protection devices that make shooting safer). Taxing or imposing fees on any of these items directly burdens the core right.
The Real-World Harm: A Poll Tax on Self-Defense
These taxes and fees function as modern poll taxes on the Second Amendment. They disproportionately burden low-income Americans, minorities, single parents—precisely the people who most need the means of self-defense. Turning a constitutional right into a pay-to-play privilege is not public safety policy; it is class warfare disguised as regulation.
Time to Challenge the Status Quo
The federal $200 NFA tax stamps? Unconstitutional under Minneapolis Star and Harper.
State pistol purchase permits and concealed-carry fees? Gone under Murdock and Shuttlesworth.
Mandatory background-check processing fees? Likewise invalid.
The cases are aligned. The historical record is clear. Post-Bruen, these financial barriers to Second Amendment rights are facial violations waiting to be struck down.
The Founders did not fight Redcoats with muskets they had to buy a tax stamp for. Two hundred and fifty years later, Americans should not have to pay bureaucrats for permission to exercise a pre-existing, God-given right.
The Second Amendment is not a luxury good. It is a constitutional guarantee. No tax. No fee. No permission slip required.
Special thanks to Mark W. Smith (@fourboxesdiner) for his insightful analysis sharpening the application of Harper and Minneapolis Star to these issues.