The NRA lost a California court case regarding the imposition of firearms transfer fee:
“… In a 3-0 decision on Thursday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the law advanced California’s interest in disarming people who are forbidden from possessing guns and rifles, while imposing only a “minimal” burden on core constitutional rights under the Second Amendment …”
That this comes out of the 9th Circus does not surprise me. It also builds upon the earlier NYC licensing fee case the 2nd Circuit ruled was also constitutional. The difference with this one though is that part of the fee goes for law enforcement efforts against illegal purchases. I can see where a court would agree that the state has an interest in preventing prohibited persons from obtaining firearms, but why should the cost be put upon legal purchasers and not the taxpaying public as a whole?