CDZ Should guns and ammo be tax free items? Seattle's gun & ammo tax show why...

[2aguy]

Gun falls out of backpack, goes off.
Gun falls out of pocket, goes off.
Gun falls out of purse, goes off.
Froot Loop showing off manhood gun, it goes off.
Toddler shoots mother, other toddler, clerk behind counter.
Father/son preachers shoot it out at church.
Gun store clerk accidentally shoots customer.
Instructor drops gun, shoots self
Instructor shoots student.
Homeowner shoots neighbor.
Homeowner shoots spouse.
Hunter "accidentally"shoots other hunter.
Hunter's dog shoots other hunter.
Hunter's dog shoots owner.
Congressman votes to let mentally ill buy guns. Mentally ill man shoots congressman playing baseball in the park.

You get the point, right? The nutters have made it easy for every other nutter to buy pretty much any gun they want and said nutters then go out and shoot others. That last example doesn't really count because the taxpayer foots the bill but what about those innocents who are harmed by the, uh enthusiasm and passion of gun nutters? A while back, I heard of a congressman who didn't become a lobbyist for te NRA and instead, is selling liability ins to gun nuts. And the NRA has found yet another way to soak the gullible:

The NRA Is Selling Insurance to Gun Owners Willing to Shoot in Self Defense

The policies cover clean-up costs, too. But full reimbursement for legal fees only comes when a case ends in acquittal.

by Alex Yablon and Mike Spies


·April 26, 2017


First, the National Rifle Association worked to let gun owners carry firearms in public. Then it fought to pass laws that say gun carriers can open fire to stop a perceived threat, even when retreat is possible. Now that the NRA has expanded the legal right to armed self defense, it’s muscling into the niche industry that’s arisen to help Americans deal with the costly consequences of actually exercising it. This week, the group unveiled insurance plans that it says will help defray the legal costs that can arise from shooting another person.

and

Let us help you get the protection you need.
and

The Myth of Gun Liability Insurance

The 5 Problems of Requiring Gun Owners to Buy Liability Insurance

Should Gun Owners Have To Buy Liability Insurance?

=========================

So? Should the shooter be responsible? Like car insurance, should the have to carry insurance or prove he can cover the size bill the congressman is now racking up?

What about gun owners like me? I own guns but they don't own me. I wouldn't consider carrying a gun with me so should I have to carry the same insurance as those who can't go to the grocery store without their gun?

Nope...mandatory insurance is nothing more than a poll tax...the democrats used poll taxes to keep blacks from voting...you would use insurance fees as a tax on gun ownership...making it impossible for the poor to own and carry guns....

And guns are used by Americans to stop violent criminal attack 1,500,000 times a year......according to bill Clinton and Batak Obama.......those are lives saved and money saved...and insurance premiums that don't go up because the victims stop the crimes......

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Gun falls out of backpack, goes off.
Gun falls out of pocket, goes off.
Gun falls out of purse, goes off.
Froot Loop showing off manhood gun, it goes off.
Toddler shoots mother, other toddler, clerk behind counter.
Father/son preachers shoot it out at church.
Gun store clerk accidentally shoots customer.
Instructor drops gun, shoots self
Instructor shoots student.
Homeowner shoots neighbor.
Homeowner shoots spouse.
Hunter "accidentally"shoots other hunter.
Hunter's dog shoots other hunter.
Hunter's dog shoots owner.
Congressman votes to let mentally ill buy guns. Mentally ill man shoots congressman playing baseball in the park.

You get the point, right? The nutters have made it easy for every other nutter to buy pretty much any gun they want and said nutters then go out and shoot others. That last example doesn't really count because the taxpayer foots the bill but what about those innocents who are harmed by the, uh enthusiasm and passion of gun nutters? A while back, I heard of a congressman who didn't become a lobbyist for te NRA and instead, is selling liability ins to gun nuts. And the NRA has found yet another way to soak the gullible:

The NRA Is Selling Insurance to Gun Owners Willing to Shoot in Self Defense

The policies cover clean-up costs, too. But full reimbursement for legal fees only comes when a case ends in acquittal.

by Alex Yablon and Mike Spies


·April 26, 2017


First, the National Rifle Association worked to let gun owners carry firearms in public. Then it fought to pass laws that say gun carriers can open fire to stop a perceived threat, even when retreat is possible. Now that the NRA has expanded the legal right to armed self defense, it’s muscling into the niche industry that’s arisen to help Americans deal with the costly consequences of actually exercising it. This week, the group unveiled insurance plans that it says will help defray the legal costs that can arise from shooting another person.

and

Let us help you get the protection you need.
and

The Myth of Gun Liability Insurance

The 5 Problems of Requiring Gun Owners to Buy Liability Insurance

Should Gun Owners Have To Buy Liability Insurance?

=========================

So? Should the shooter be responsible? Like car insurance, should the have to carry insurance or prove he can cover the size bill the congressman is now racking up?

What about gun owners like me? I own guns but they don't own me. I wouldn't consider carrying a gun with me so should I have to carry the same insurance as those who can't go to the grocery store without their gun?

Nope...mandatory insurance is nothing more than a poll tax...the democrats used poll taxes to keep blacks from voting...you would use insurance fees as a tax on gun ownership...making it impossible for the poor to own and carry guns....

And guns are used by Americans to stop violent criminal attack 1,500,000 times a year......according to bill Clinton and Batak Obama.......those are lives saved and money saved...and insurance premiums that don't go up because the victims stop the crimes......

So, you don't want to pay taxes on what you buy and you don't want to be responsible for shooting innocents.

That means others will pick up your tab.

Nothing new about that.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[FA_Q2]

This is merely a symptom of the greater problem - selective taxation. Either goods are taxed or they are not. At no time should the government be singling out anything for special tax rates. That practice is nothing more than trying to cover up controlling people.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The church is a business nothing more

When a society's churches are reduced to being nothing more than any other business rather than centers for morality, ethics and spiritual guidance, then it is the beginning of society's decline and eventual collapse.

Not really because people don't need churches for any of that.
You don't even need a church if you are a believer

 

[Skull Pilot]

This is merely a symptom of the greater problem - selective taxation. Either goods are taxed or they are not. At no time should the government be singling out anything for special tax rates. That practice is nothing more than trying to cover up controlling people.

it's ham handed social engineering

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Taxes should be applied to those things that cost the rest of us money. Cigarettes,fatty foods,sugar and guns. I am sure that there are others.
If you need these things thats fine but dont expect the rest of us to pick up the tab.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Taxes should be applied to those things that cost the rest of us money. Cigarettes,fatty foods,sugar and guns. I am sure that there are others.
If you need these things thats fine but dont expect the rest of us to pick up the tab.

if you don't smoke cigarettes do not cost you anything

and what you don't seem to understand is that if the government succeeds in getting everyone to stop smoking YOU will have to pay more in taxes to make up for the revenue loss because we all know damn well that spending won't decrease
My owning guns doesn't cost you anything either in fact I have to pay for my permits not you

a fat guy like your avatar doesn't cost me any money as I'm not buying him his food

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Taxes should be applied to those things that cost the rest of us money. Cigarettes,fatty foods,sugar and guns. I am sure that there are others.
If you need these things thats fine but dont expect the rest of us to pick up the tab.

if you don't smoke cigarettes do not cost you anything

and what you don't seem to understand is that if the government succeeds in getting everyone to stop smoking YOU will have to pay more in taxes to make up for the revenue loss because we all know damn well that spending won't decrease
My owning guns doesn't cost you anything either in fact I have to pay for my permits not you

a fat guy like your avatar doesn't cost me any money as I'm not buying him his food

Dont Americans have to pay for hospitals,security measures, police and so on ?

 

[toobfreak]

Taxes should be applied to those things that cost the rest of us money. Cigarettes,fatty foods,sugar and guns. I am sure that there are others.
If you need these things thats fine but dont expect the rest of us to pick up the tab.

It could be argued that ANYTHING costs you money, somehow, indirectly. Your argument doesn't hold even a cup of water. You "pick up no tab" on other's purchases of guns, they make you safer in fact. Same is true with smoking and rich foods. Smokers already pay out the yin yang on taxes and higher insurance costs, our whole culture is built around fast foods, dining out, frozen dinners and prepackaged meals, and many die young who eat and live a virtuous life as much as live old and healthy who do not.

 

[toobfreak]

Dont Americans have to pay for hospitals,security measures, police and so on ?

You live in a bubble of ignorance and stupidity. Every word you write is based on a logical fallacy! I suggest you do a little reading on Black & White Reasoning:

Flaws in Reasoning and Arguments: Black and White Thinking

and

False dilemma - Wikipedia

 

[2aguy]

Gun falls out of backpack, goes off.
Gun falls out of pocket, goes off.
Gun falls out of purse, goes off.
Froot Loop showing off manhood gun, it goes off.
Toddler shoots mother, other toddler, clerk behind counter.
Father/son preachers shoot it out at church.
Gun store clerk accidentally shoots customer.
Instructor drops gun, shoots self
Instructor shoots student.
Homeowner shoots neighbor.
Homeowner shoots spouse.
Hunter "accidentally"shoots other hunter.
Hunter's dog shoots other hunter.
Hunter's dog shoots owner.
Congressman votes to let mentally ill buy guns. Mentally ill man shoots congressman playing baseball in the park.

You get the point, right? The nutters have made it easy for every other nutter to buy pretty much any gun they want and said nutters then go out and shoot others. That last example doesn't really count because the taxpayer foots the bill but what about those innocents who are harmed by the, uh enthusiasm and passion of gun nutters? A while back, I heard of a congressman who didn't become a lobbyist for te NRA and instead, is selling liability ins to gun nuts. And the NRA has found yet another way to soak the gullible:

The NRA Is Selling Insurance to Gun Owners Willing to Shoot in Self Defense

The policies cover clean-up costs, too. But full reimbursement for legal fees only comes when a case ends in acquittal.

by Alex Yablon and Mike Spies


·April 26, 2017


First, the National Rifle Association worked to let gun owners carry firearms in public. Then it fought to pass laws that say gun carriers can open fire to stop a perceived threat, even when retreat is possible. Now that the NRA has expanded the legal right to armed self defense, it’s muscling into the niche industry that’s arisen to help Americans deal with the costly consequences of actually exercising it. This week, the group unveiled insurance plans that it says will help defray the legal costs that can arise from shooting another person.

and

Let us help you get the protection you need.
and

The Myth of Gun Liability Insurance

The 5 Problems of Requiring Gun Owners to Buy Liability Insurance

Should Gun Owners Have To Buy Liability Insurance?

=========================

So? Should the shooter be responsible? Like car insurance, should the have to carry insurance or prove he can cover the size bill the congressman is now racking up?

What about gun owners like me? I own guns but they don't own me. I wouldn't consider carrying a gun with me so should I have to carry the same insurance as those who can't go to the grocery store without their gun?

Nope...mandatory insurance is nothing more than a poll tax...the democrats used poll taxes to keep blacks from voting...you would use insurance fees as a tax on gun ownership...making it impossible for the poor to own and carry guns....

And guns are used by Americans to stop violent criminal attack 1,500,000 times a year......according to bill Clinton and Batak Obama.......those are lives saved and money saved...and insurance premiums that don't go up because the victims stop the crimes......

So, you don't want to pay taxes on what you buy and you don't want to be responsible for shooting innocents.

That means others will pick up your tab.

Nothing new about that.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

No...I don't want taxes used to take away a Right....the democrats used taxes....Poll Taxes, to take away the Right to vote....democrats are now using taxes to attack the 2nd Amendment, and are using them to close down gun stores....it is no different than if the government placed a tax on newspapers ......to the point newpapers had to shut down......

I will be responsible if I shoot an innocent.....if a criminal gets a gun illegally, a gun he/she cannot buy, own or carry legally breaks the law and uses that gun to shoot an innocent person....I am not responsible for that shooting......I support the laws that say that felon can be arrested for mere possession of the gun.....it is people like you who fight putting that felon in jail for 30 years for an actual gun crime......

 

[KokomoJojo]

“No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105)

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) that such licenses are illegal.

Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 373 U.S. 262 (1963) that citizens “can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” Combined with fact that the Second Amendment clearly states the act of keeping and bearing arms is a right seems to withdraw all wiggle room for law enforcement to behave otherwise, unless the legal examiner or legislator ignores either the Constitution or the U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Taxing and licensing both infringe on a right and its not constitutional to either tax or license a right, privileges on the other hand yes, they are slowly converting our rights to privileges by deceitful use of the language and presuming rights do not exist only privileges.

The operative 'substantive' term is 'charge a fee' regardless of the label they wish to place on it.

 

[2aguy]

“No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105)

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) that such licenses are illegal.

Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 373 U.S. 262 (1963) that citizens “can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” Combined with fact that the Second Amendment clearly states the act of keeping and bearing arms is a right seems to withdraw all wiggle room for law enforcement to behave otherwise, unless the legal examiner or legislator ignores either the Constitution or the U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Taxing and licensing both infringe on a right and its not constitutional to either tax or license a right, privileges on the other hand yes, they are slowly converting our rights to privileges by deceitful use of the language and presuming rights do not exist only privileges.

The operative 'substantive' term is 'charge a fee' regardless of the label they wish to place on it.

Thanks, I am going to look that case up....

 

[2aguy]

“No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105)

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) that such licenses are illegal.

Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 373 U.S. 262 (1963) that citizens “can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” Combined with fact that the Second Amendment clearly states the act of keeping and bearing arms is a right seems to withdraw all wiggle room for law enforcement to behave otherwise, unless the legal examiner or legislator ignores either the Constitution or the U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Taxing and licensing both infringe on a right and its not constitutional to either tax or license a right, privileges on the other hand yes, they are slowly converting our rights to privileges by deceitful use of the language and presuming rights do not exist only privileges.

The operative 'substantive' term is 'charge a fee' regardless of the label they wish to place on it.

Thanks...even more support against licensing gun owners, registering guns and requiring trainging......

 

[2aguy]

Thanks to Kokomojojo....we have our answer to this thread from the Supreme Court.........someone needs to take Seattle to court......and get this tax thrown out...as well as the fees and taxes that block the exercise of the Right of self defense...

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Murdock v. Pennsylvania
319 U.S. 105 (1943)



4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.

5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.

6. That the ordinance is "nondiscriminatory," in that it applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise, is immaterial. The liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment are in a preferred position. P. 319 U. S. 115.

7. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant. P. 319 U. S. 115.

8. A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful. P. 319 U. S. 116.

------

Page 319 U. S. 108



The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ."

It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is, in substance, just that.

 

[2aguy]

More on Murdoch v. Pennsylvania....

Murdock v. Pennsylvania - Wikipedia

Decision[edit]
Justice William O. Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court. The court held that the ordinance was an unconstitutional tax on the Jehovah's Witnesses' right to freely exercise their religion.

--------------------------

If the exercise can be taxed, the government is capable of making it prohibitively expensive and could be done only by the wealthy.

The state claimed that argument was unimportant because the tax was not expensive in practice. It is a license tax, a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege recognized by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution. The fact that the ordinance was imposed indiscriminately does not save it from being unconstitutional.

The case also established the preferred position doctrine, which states that "[f]reedom of press, freedom of speech, [and] freedom of religion are in a preferred position," indicating that certain fundamental human rights have prerogative.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

They should make up the budget by taking the money out of City Council's salaries until they get crime under control. Guns and ammo ought to be more than tax exempt like the church, every able-bodied person ought to be required to own one and be given courses in how to handled them.

I like that. If they support increasing taxes then the city officials should to take an increase in their own taxes, for say... being put in an official position, also.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Skull Pilot]

Taxes should be applied to those things that cost the rest of us money. Cigarettes,fatty foods,sugar and guns. I am sure that there are others.
If you need these things thats fine but dont expect the rest of us to pick up the tab.

if you don't smoke cigarettes do not cost you anything

and what you don't seem to understand is that if the government succeeds in getting everyone to stop smoking YOU will have to pay more in taxes to make up for the revenue loss because we all know damn well that spending won't decrease
My owning guns doesn't cost you anything either in fact I have to pay for my permits not you

a fat guy like your avatar doesn't cost me any money as I'm not buying him his food

Dont Americans have to pay for hospitals,security measures, police and so on ?

so you think we wouldn't pay for police if people didn't have guns?

 

[FA_Q2]

Thanks to Kokomojojo....we have our answer to this thread from the Supreme Court.........someone needs to take Seattle to court......and get this tax thrown out...as well as the fees and taxes that block the exercise of the Right of self defense...

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Murdock v. Pennsylvania
319 U.S. 105 (1943)



4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.

5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.

6. That the ordinance is "nondiscriminatory," in that it applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise, is immaterial. The liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment are in a preferred position. P. 319 U. S. 115.

7. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant. P. 319 U. S. 115.

8. A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful. P. 319 U. S. 116.

------

Page 319 U. S. 108



The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ."

It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is, in substance, just that.

Unfortunately, such would not work because the modern courts have decided that some rights can simply be ignored.

It is why those that wish to impose ever increasing controls on guns have turned to the courts rather than doing what is necessary for those controls - change the constitution.

 

[KokomoJojo]

“No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105)

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) that such licenses are illegal.

Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 373 U.S. 262 (1963) that citizens “can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” Combined with fact that the Second Amendment clearly states the act of keeping and bearing arms is a right seems to withdraw all wiggle room for law enforcement to behave otherwise, unless the legal examiner or legislator ignores either the Constitution or the U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Taxing and licensing both infringe on a right and its not constitutional to either tax or license a right, privileges on the other hand yes, they are slowly converting our rights to privileges by deceitful use of the language and presuming rights do not exist only privileges.

The operative 'substantive' term is 'charge a fee' regardless of the label they wish to place on it.

Thanks...even more support against licensing gun owners, registering guns and requiring trainging......

few people undestand basic contract law, the indians proved this is the way rights work

Reserved Rights - U.S. Constitution - How it Works.