patterson for the plaintiffs appellants unless the nd amendment is a nd class right cook county stacks on firearms and ammunition must be shot down just because the supreme courts of illinois in the united states have struck down the taxes on constitutional rights across a wide array of rights be it the right to vote the right to access the clips the right to marry the free exercise of religion or the freedom of the press self defense purposes essentially and these pacifically said in in that case they did not intend to destroy the existing jurisprudence about the right to regulate the commercial sale of a firearms correct sales tax but the court said that doesn't matter the the injury is the exposure of this constitutional right to the taxpayer we're not going to allow that we're not going to look at you know what the relative tax b it's the singling out of the right for taxation that is the burden in that that was the problem and that's exactly where we have here the only supreme court said the same thing in the in the point in case you know you can see right marriage a fundamental right through taxation and again the united states supreme court has explicitly said that the nd amendment is not a nd class right so unless there is going to be some different special test that applies to  the nd amendment the right simply cannot be taxed and the county is somewhere in between a rock and a hard place here because as it they are preempted from regulating body for a callback in the faroe concealed carry act which is why they're insist criminals do not purchase firearms at retail and again judge chang in the northern district of illinois struck down chicago's ban on ventura's and that was his reasoning was that the evidence shows that criminals are not going to ban stores to purchase so you're doing is you're taking the people who are going to protect themselves from the criminals and bank firearms to protect themselves and you're putting a tax on those people building on those people to pay for the misdeeds of those criminals it makes absolutely no really doesn't matter because under whatever standard of scrutiny it applies there is that weatherly available turn of and that is raise your funds with general taxation that applies across the board don't do it on the backs of  people that are exercising a fundamental constitutional right and even to understand that intermediate screen now says there is no relationship the county has to have evidence of a connection between the object of their regulation and their goal and they have no evidence that these are all fighting for card holders who are purchasing firearms from going stores are going out and committing the crimes that they say they're trying to address with these fines which by the end of the firearm attacks the fans are illinois right to bear arms is please i don't have case apparent but i have the text of the constitution which says subject only to the police power the fundamental right or the individual citizen's right to keep phrase the cost of that on the cell in fact may apply that the nd amendment context and they said well the evidence in the record is that is three hundred and fifty dollars is that it cost three hundred fifty dollars to process these applications and therefore under contacts it's legitimate to charge a three hundred and forty dollars processing fee so you know this is not a revenue raising tax that's the precise reason why that best feature was upheld in cra and that's right this is a case of st impression because this is a naked revenue raising tax not incident to a regulatory licensing scheme because cook county has no authority to regulate it is easy to see why this doctrine has developed across it variety of rights is because the power to tax is the power to destroy and that if you say a constitutional right can be subject to taxation that is subject to tremendous abuse said you cannot do that that is unconstitutional you know the strict scrutiny applies and you can raise your funds and never read it and the same reasoning applies here so that's the distinction between a fee that is of the constitutional provision and how to use it for example in the united states supreme court has addressed the right to free exercise of religion and has said that you know the constitution says you have a right to go through the at you know the framework that has been established to analyze nd amendment cases determine whether that exercise of the police power is valid but it's a subject only to the police power of those words need to have meaning court said no we're not dealing with a constitutional right here so that is how this is to simply wish the government has a broad authority to tax various activities but when it comes to a constitutional right the united states supreme court in the illinois supreme court time and again have made clear that these rights are different then again some of those rights that have been addressed the right to vote the right to access the kurds the right to marry the right to freedom of religion re to the freedom of the press it's easy to see how this could be subject to abuse if they were to taxation of the same with you know i'm not going to deny the right to keep and bear arms is controversial and there are statements in the  it's because you're putting a burden on the ability to exercise your right to keep it and bear arms again i'll go back to judge chang who said the simple acquisition of a firearm is the most fundamental prerequisite to individual gun ownership so the same thing when the newspapers sample it was a tax on paper in ink in the minneapolis sawyer and tribune case in the print in case there was a tax on a marriage license in  can't do a single hour it's a constitutional right for a special tax that is over in about of the general tax and again in point in the crib it was clear there was absolutely zero evidence that a single person had had their marriage plans aster in the road map case which involves jehovah's witnesses growing for an evangelizer in the city trying to put a tax on them in order to be able to do that there was no evidence in the record but any single person had been dissuaded from exercising their religion by pass this is where we have to look past and i want you to comment on this you know there's a difference between religion and the past as opposed to perhaps and it was recognized specifically by minute context and this is consistent with that but this here is not consistent with that and harriet to the extent that it departed from the st and it seems that the protection is even stronger because it struck down the right to have a looking to see that there since now we've been prevented from regulating this conduct rep can we do and unfortunately you know in trying to get away from the police powers they could next for size they run into this  type of private lists activity where regulation is required so you've got a parade so the government can't just let everybody parade in the streets at any time the regulation actually facilitates the exercise of the right and that's the situation in which the fee is allowed and the clear did not accept that but that applied cox and that to the extent cox applied the evidence in the case there was that the feet was not any more the road took to process  application so the so the fee was not a tax in the sense of the tax it i'm describing a tax and this case here or it clearly under cox even assuming that concept could conceivably a pot to this type of situation from ben dealers so there is a tour of disconnect it's it's even worse than in the barrington case where there is evidence about the connection between marriage and domestic ballots here there is no evidence every evidence goes the opposite direction so stance when they are paid completely by the customer and the general manager next indicated at the deposition it they've conceded that smolensky has standing to challenge the ammunition tax because she paid the ammunition tax and they're there to ban cigarettes members who we've specifically named  poured for mass and standing and the sense that the tax in that case that was the chicago th district which operated the morning on the river and there was a tax put on those m challenge that tax encouraged even though that the incidence of tax was not on them and that's the same thing with max and here you know the evidence is though that this is going to impose substantial compliance costs on them and that it's going to hurt their financial position that the evidence in the record is that the during the st six months etc during the evidence does not show that their software can handle this at the deposition testimony shows that they have software that can report a mission sales fire arm sales but as declaration makes clear that software reproduce a munition sales in terms of boxes it is not reproach of ammunition sales in terms of rounds of ammunition and cook county has taxed the rounds of and the boys ok you know maybe maybe fifty one thousand is not the true number maybe it was seventy five thousand it was twenty five thousand but there's no evidence in the record come back at the suggestion that they did lose money and that this is it's a simple matter of economics to realize that this is going to hurt them when you have to create you know this was over ten percent of the purchase price of a mission this tax if you have to put that on a mission put an additional twenty five dollars  government interest and that is public safety here the cook county extends that's taxpayer money dealing with the casa grande ballots to the county to best the police the corrections department in the cook county hospital than the test brings in but it does help to furthe this right before us now is subject to conditions and qualifications they said for the color and the conditions and the complications of commercial sale of firearms and that's what we have here that it is only a condition say that there are it is ok to impose conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of fire and i made those other rights we have to force that event determine his fundamental rights like free speech the right to vote the rights married those this recently in the last two years since this case has up from ford that is on strictly a tax case where they put a tax on firearms in the city of seattle there was a case pending in san diego that don't believe has been resolved yet and again right and it's wrong if it doesn't hinge on any type of right then we will have to we will make sure that it is substantially related to an important governmental interest which in this case it clearly is we have a governmental interest in  cases were not tailored fit to the domestic violence finding that they were finding they found that those are two just certainly related to be a compelling governmental interest so i like this case where we issues are related because there is a great deal of cost to cook county from gun violence and the related matters with gun violence in the marriage case there is not a nexus between marriage and domestic violence counseling and so here when you look at the just the the bill with regard to the firearms and ammunition cases we see that they utilize intermediate scrutiny which suggests that this is not in fact a fundamental right because the courts have placed limitations on the fed to bear arms interstate travel however everyone pays a toll tax going from state to state when it mr henderson's argument that the relationship between what you are seeking to achieve and small amount of the cost to the county as a whole somewhere play that everyone pays into the school tax whether or not you have kids in the school system debates in the convention or anything like that but it's clear that the language is different than for the language is different that can be given meaning and it's really you know i don't think the meaning is different i think that under the federal constitution you can't tax the nd amendment under all the cases we've discussed so found invalid so the primitiveness originator of it has no has no bearing in terms of evidence about costs where they don't have evidence of is that these natural purchasers are the ones inflicting the costs sure that the count to include those and they were stripped out because presumably it was recognized that it would not be appropriate to taxes items so since nine hundred and thirty six dollars there has never been a tax and you know standard handguns rifles at the federal level it's only interstate interstate travel i find that the cases specifically say if they discriminate against interstate travel very on constitutional so it's the same principle you can not single out the constitutional right for