What are you talking about? I'm going to assume from your previous post that you had forgotten that poll taxes are explicitly barred by the Constitution. You aren't trying to make the same retarded argument as nobodyknows or monovillage, right?
The courts have long held that the government may place reasonable restrictions on Constitutional rights. (the old fire in a crowded theater crap) The courts have also held that the government can implement fees to cover the costs incurred by the regulation of such rights. Like gun permits, event permits, etc. In light of this your example doesn't really make any sense. They are going to charge you for the administrative costs of not searching you?
They are NOT allowed to simply slap random, punitive fees in order to inhibit the realization of rights. If nobodyknows had bothered to read the judgment that I linked he would have seen that NYC's fee is based on an estimate generated for the administrative costs associated with gun licensing. It was upheld for the very reason that it was to cover incurred costs, not deliberately to limit gun ownership. (if you want to argue about why the admin costs are so high, fine, but that's why it was upheld)
I'm very open to hearing criticism of NYC's gun licensing scheme, but the argument that this falls under the same idea as the poll tax is simply factually incorrect. Similarly, the idea that we can just 'read the Constitution!' and not interpret what it means is simply flat out retarded.
