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

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by 2aguy, Jun 17, 2017.

  1. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    54,904
    Thanks Received:
    9,502
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +37,420

    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......
     
  2. KokomoJojo
    Offline

    KokomoJojo VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,765
    Thanks Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +181
    “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.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    54,904
    Thanks Received:
    9,502
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +37,420

    Thanks, I am going to look that case up....
     
  4. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    54,904
    Thanks Received:
    9,502
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +37,420

    Thanks...even more support against licensing gun owners, registering guns and requiring trainging......
     
  5. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    54,904
    Thanks Received:
    9,502
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +37,420
    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.
     
  6. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    54,904
    Thanks Received:
    9,502
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +37,420
    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.
     
  7. Damaged Eagle
    Offline

    Damaged Eagle Soltice bells Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,080
    Thanks Received:
    11,157
    Trophy Points:
    2,295
    Location:
    Winter wonderland
    Ratings:
    +16,256
    [​IMG]

    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*****



    :)
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    38,568
    Thanks Received:
    5,303
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +14,319

    so you think we wouldn't pay for police if people didn't have guns?
     
  9. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    16,006
    Thanks Received:
    2,358
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +5,494
    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. KokomoJojo
    Offline

    KokomoJojo VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,765
    Thanks Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +181

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


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




     

Share This Page