Biden to tax away your guns

[RealDave]

Poor basb

Report: Biden’s proposed gun control plan could hit gun owners with $34 billion in taxes

Get ready to pay up

www.theblaze.com

I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.

Poor babies. Your Assault type toys might be taxed.

 

[RealDave]

Little boys with big guns and tiny pee-pees, conjuring sugar-plum fantasies of civil war, with their panties in a bunch, over nothing at all. Absolutely nothing.

What is it with you left wing doofuses and the male penis.........? We start talking about guns and you guys start sweating and rubbing yourselves.......

You need to get help...

We all know about how you compensate for your short comings.

 

[Lesh]

In Miller it was found that


March 30, 1939, the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:

1. The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and so is within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
2. The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas and so used it in interstate commerce.
3. The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
4. The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230," was never used in any militia organization.

 

[Lesh]

Wrong, dipstick.......it stated guns used for military purposes are protected by the 2nd Amendment...which means fully automatic military weapons are Constitutional.....

BUT CAN BE TAXED

 

[2aguy]

In Miller it was found that


March 30, 1939, the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:

1. The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and so is within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
2. The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas and so used it in interstate commerce.
3. The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
4. The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230," was never used in any militia organization.

And?

That is what the prosecution argued....it isn't what the court ruled....

And then you have Heller, and MacDonald, and Highland Park v Friedman and Scalia stating that AR-15 rifles and others like it are protected rifles....

What is your point?

 

[2aguy]

Wrong, dipstick.......it stated guns used for military purposes are protected by the 2nd Amendment...which means fully automatic military weapons are Constitutional.....

BUT CAN BE TAXED

No.....you are wrong again.......you pay a sales tax because all products can be taxed...you can't impose a tax simply to deny a Right...

Murdoch v Pennsylvania......

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.

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

Murdock v. Pennsylvania: It is unconstitutional for a state to tax people selling religious merchandise.

supreme.justia.com

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Little boys with big guns and tiny pee-pees, conjuring sugar-plum fantasies of civil war, with their panties in a bunch, over nothing at all. Absolutely nothing.

What is it with you left wing doofuses and the male penis.........? We start talking about guns and you guys start sweating and rubbing yourselves.......

You need to get help...

I think that it is very clearly obvious, at least in this case, and many others, that the mass of their slip-on footwear is insufficient.

 

[2aguy]

Little boys with big guns and tiny pee-pees, conjuring sugar-plum fantasies of civil war, with their panties in a bunch, over nothing at all. Absolutely nothing.

What is it with you left wing doofuses and the male penis.........? We start talking about guns and you guys start sweating and rubbing yourselves.......

You need to get help...

We all know about how you compensate for your short comings.

Please......stop rubbing yourself....guns are not sex toys or objects for sexual stimulation.......you should get help from a trained professional before you hurt yourself.

 

[2aguy]

In Miller it was found that


March 30, 1939, the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:

1. The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and so is within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
2. The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas and so used it in interstate commerce.
3. The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
4. The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230," was never used in any militia organization.

Heller......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Friedman v Highland Park..

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

We all know about how you compensate for your short comings.

What is interesting is that the weakest, most pathetic, and most worthless among us try to compensate for their shortcomings, not by doing anything to improve themselves, but by trying to drag others down to their own level of weakness and worthlessness.

 

[danielpalos]

Wrong, dipstick.......it stated guns used for military purposes are protected by the 2nd Amendment...which means fully automatic military weapons are Constitutional.....

BUT CAN BE TAXED

No.....you are wrong again.......you pay a sales tax because all products can be taxed...you can't impose a tax simply to deny a Right...

Murdoch v Pennsylvania......

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.

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

Murdock v. Pennsylvania: It is unconstitutional for a state to tax people selling religious merchandise.

supreme.justia.com

We could quibble over "sin taxes".

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Poor babies. Your Assault type toys might be taxed.

Not if the Republicans maintain leadership of the Senate.

 

[kaz]

OK, so according to you [Winston], the government can outlaw Islam then because they still have the choice of another religion.

According to you, government can shut down the NY Times because you still have other news sources you can listen to.

Thing is it's not up to you why I want to own guns. And the Constitution says it's not up to the government

I'm a member of a religion that did not exist, and could probably not have been anticipated, at the time that the First Amendment was written.

Winston has tried to argue that modern arms are not covered by the Second Amendment, because the authors of that Amendment didn't know about them.

I wonder if he would try to argue, or agree with any attempt to argue, that my right to believe in and practice the Mormon religion is not protected by the First Amendment, for the same reason.

Yes, and by that same argument, we would not have freedom of speech on TV or on the Internet or from blimps. They said nothing about the medium. They said "free speech." Just like they said the right to guns shall not be infringed. It does not say the right to guns of current technology shall not be infringed.

The founding fathers anticipated that times change and the Constitution had to be a living document. So they gave us a way to update it. 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. They never said 5/9. Only broadly held views should be in the Constitution. That Winston can't get his limits on guns he wants is because we don't have broad agreement on that, which is exactly why they should not be in the Constitution

I just want to let you know, freedom of the press is about the freedom of the press, not you. Hope that clears things up.

No, it clears up nothing since you addressed nothing that I said. If you want to change the Constitution, the Constitution says how to do it. 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. It does not say 5/9, Big Brother

 

[kaz]

Report: Biden’s proposed gun control plan could hit gun owners with $34 billion in taxes

Get ready to pay up

www.theblaze.com

I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.

This can be appealed in court....it would be like taxing books and magazines or newspapers to the point you invalidate the 1st Amendment...

Not really, since it is already done. Even Scalia admitted jurisdictions have the authority to tax guns. And that includes the federal government. It is actually a great idea, just make those "modern sporting rifles", that still cracks me up, like automatic weapons. Eliminating selling new by preventing their production, and then taxing the ones that are in private hands. Not really seeing a case here. You can still own your pistols, shotguns, and real rifles.

Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?

What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?

Winston? Where'd you go? Since you're OK with taxing Constitutionally protected rights, so ...

Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?​

What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?​

I don't know what is so hard to understand. You do not, I repeat, DO NOT, have a constitutional guaranteed right to own a modern sporting rifle. Now, when the second amendment was a collective right based on the arming of a militia, you could make the argument that you did have a constitutional right to modern sporting rifles. A really good argument. But that ship sailed away with the judicial activism, and creationism, of Heller. Now the second amendment is an individual right based on self-protection. Do you need a modern sporting rifle for self-protection. Why no, no you don't. Not only can we tax modern sporting rifles, we can ban their production for private use, we can even ban owning them. Because that ban would not significantly "infringe" upon someone's ability to have another type of gun for self-defense.

So fifty, maybe sixty years from now, you won't be able to own much more than a taser and some pepper spray. Hunting will die off, like it almost has. I mean there is more small game roaming around in the woods than there was when the colonists got here. Squirrels, Raccoons, Rabbits--hell, if it weren't for the cats the rabbits would have already taken us over. I mean how many people do you know that run a pack of beagles for rabbit hunting? Not near as many that have that beagle to primp and prune for the Westminister Dog Show. Poor fellas.

I guess what I am saying is that you gun nuts overplayed your hand. When the second amendment was a collective right, well when the Stormtroopers got them some laser fueled disrupters, well you could get one too. Now, tough shit. Some of us in this country warned you guys. We killed our NRA memberships and joined other outfits, like the Sportsman's Alliance. The NRA became nothing more than a Ponzi scam lobbying for the gun manufacturers. They don't give two shits if you lose your collective right to participate in a militia, they pursue the mighty dollar. When modern sporting rifles are outlawed they will just sell you tasers.

Yes....we do....what part of the Heller decision do you not understand? What does Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Heller mean when he says that AR-15s are protected weapons....?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

Tell me, what makes sawed off shotguns subject to regulation and bans and not modern sporting rifles? What you fail to realize is that if they can rationalize banning sawed off shotguns they can rationalize banning modern sporting rifles. And the fact that they can ban sawed off shotguns is a clear indicator that you and your friends are not constitutionally granted the right to own any damn weapon you want.

"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You really can't read that? And don't bring up the regulated militia since that is an explanation of protecting the right, it is not a limit on the right. That you can't read is a terrible arguement.

Because A, B.

Even someone government educated like you should get that.

And seriously, is Winston actually your name? Obviously it's not a 1984 reference since you're clearly on the side of Big Brother

I really like dipshits that want to condemn a public education. Yes, I have a public education, from the Ivy university of public universities. But I also graduated summa cum laude from a private university. Not really seeing much of a point. The "well-regulated militia" part was not an "explanation" until Scalia did his bit of judicial activism. For almost two hundred years it was a qualifier.

And yes, damn Skippy Winston is a Orwell reference. I will give you credit for that. But I have been Winston on numerous message boards for more than twenty years. Winston worked for the Ministry of Truth. That is where I am coming from, I have a videographic memory, I speak truth. The second amendment was never an individual right, the battles of Lexington and Concord were initiated because the British were marching to the ARMORY. Individuals did not have guns in their homes, too damn dangerous, the Indians might come and take them. In fact, it was BANNED in many towns for just that reason.

And here is the point that you just can't seem to understand, or that you are even willing to understand. When the second amendment became an individual right, a la Scalia, it ceased to fulfill it's primary function that the founders envisioned. And it laid open the path to the banishment of all types of weapons, the assault weapon first and foremost. The very decision you celebrate will end up being the very decision that eliminates the right you so naively believe you possess. It take a publicly school educated individual to point that out to you. And when it eventually happens, if you are still blessed enough to be among the living, remember Winston.

I don't know what "condemning" public education means. It just sucks. Obviously you know that given the pathetic excuse for an education that you got.

Yes, you work for the Ministry of Truth, which means you lie, lie and lie some more, Big Brother.

That you are "Winston" is a joke

 

[kaz]

OK, so according to you [Winston], the government can outlaw Islam then because they still have the choice of another religion.

According to you, government can shut down the NY Times because you still have other news sources you can listen to.

Thing is it's not up to you why I want to own guns. And the Constitution says it's not up to the government

I'm a member of a religion that did not exist, and could probably not have been anticipated, at the time that the First Amendment was written.

Winston has tried to argue that modern arms are not covered by the Second Amendment, because the authors of that Amendment didn't know about them.

I wonder if he would try to argue, or agree with any attempt to argue, that my right to believe in and practice the Mormon religion is not protected by the First Amendment, for the same reason.

Yes, and by that same argument, we would not have freedom of speech on TV or on the Internet or from blimps. They said nothing about the medium. They said "free speech." Just like they said the right to guns shall not be infringed. It does not say the right to guns of current technology shall not be infringed.

The founding fathers anticipated that times change and the Constitution had to be a living document. So they gave us a way to update it. 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. They never said 5/9 Only broadly held views should be in the Constitution. That Winston can't get his limits on guns he wants is because we don't have broad agreement on that, which is exactly why they should not be in the Constitution

They also gave us a SCOTUS, and they evidently can interpret the amendments however the hell they want to. No need for all that 2/3 bullshit.

I specifically addressed that, Big Brother

 

[RealDave]

Poor babies. Your Assault type toys might be taxed.

Not if the Republicans maintain leadership of the Senate.

Even if Turtlehead maintains leadership, It would just take two Republicans to side with bipartisan legislation to pass. We already know Romney, Collins are likely candidates.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Even if Turtlehead maintains leadership, It would just take two Republicans to side with bipartisan legislation to pass. We already know Romney, Collins are likely candidates.

It would also take every single Democrat Senator to go along with it. Firearms are one of the few issues that cross partisan lines. A Democrat Senator in a purple state can easily find themselves out of a job by supporting any gun measure. When our legislature came up with a CCW bill, it was a Democrat Governor who signed it because if he stopped it, his ass would have never had a chance at re-election.

We don't live in a country where only Republicans have guns. The most dangerous places in this country are heavily Democrat inner-cities. If they make it impossible for those people to own guns because they can't afford these fees, those people are not going to be happy.

 

[2aguy]

Even if Turtlehead maintains leadership, It would just take two Republicans to side with bipartisan legislation to pass. We already know Romney, Collins are likely candidates.

It would also take every single Democrat Senator to go along with it. Firearms are one of the few issues that cross partisan lines. A Democrat Senator in a purple state can easily find themselves out of a job by supporting any gun measure. When our legislature came up with a CCW bill, it was a Democrat Governor who signed it because if he stopped it, his ass would have never had a chance at re-election.

We don't live in a country where only Republicans have guns. The most dangerous places in this country are heavily Democrat inner-cities. If they make it impossible for those people to own guns because they can't afford these fees, those people are not going to be happy.

In the 1990s the democrats lost control of the House after controlling it for 40 years because of their gun control push and the Assault weapon ban. This is why obama didn't openly push gun control, instead, working to put anti-gun judges on the bench and using Fast and Furious to spread American guns through Mexico....to restart the anti-gun movement.........

With the focus on state elections in the next two years, the democrats will likely go quiet on gun control, letting mayors push new laws and anti-gun judges make them Constitutional.....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In the 1990s the democrats lost control of the House after controlling it for 40 years because of their gun control push and the Assault weapon ban. This is why obama didn't openly push gun control, instead, working to put anti-gun judges on the bench and using Fast and Furious to spread American guns through Mexico....to restart the anti-gun movement.........

With the focus on state elections in the next two years, the democrats will likely go quiet on gun control, letting mayors push new laws and anti-gun judges make them Constitutional.....

Yes, but this is one of those issues that takes the Congress to pass because it involves taxation. In Biden's gun plans, he said (it's on his webpage) he's going to take away the liability protection for gun manufacturers and dealers. That means people will be able to sue them all out of business. He also said he's going to make it illegal to buy guns, ammo, or gun parts over the internet. Bottom line is you won't be able to buy a new gun inside or outside the country, and he could do that without the consent of Congress.

This is the same dictator mentality Hussein used that closed down all the roll-you-own cigarette shops across the entire country. People used to roll their own cigarettes to avoid the heavy taxation cigarette companies passed down to their customers. DumBama taxed them the same so there was no point in rolling your own cigarettes any longer, so these mom and pop shops had to close down.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

In the 1990s the democrats lost control of the House after controlling it for 40 years because of their gun control push and the Assault weapon ban. This is why obama didn't openly push gun control, instead, working to put anti-gun judges on the bench and using Fast and Furious to spread American guns through Mexico....to restart the anti-gun movement.........

With the focus on state elections in the next two years, the democrats will likely go quiet on gun control, letting mayors push new laws and anti-gun judges make them Constitutional.....

Yes, but this is one of those issues that takes the Congress to pass because it involves taxation. In Biden's gun plans, he said (it's on his webpage) he's going to take away the liability protection for gun manufacturers and dealers. That means people will be able to sue them all out of business. He also said he's going to make it illegal to buy guns, ammo, or gun parts over the internet. Bottom line is you won't be able to buy a new gun inside or outside the country, and he could do that without the consent of Congress.

This is the same dictator mentality Hussein used that closed down all the roll-you-own cigarette shops across the entire country. People used to roll their own cigarettes to avoid the heavy taxation cigarette companies passed down to their customers. DumBama taxed them the same so there was no point in rolling your own cigarettes any longer, so these mom and pop shops had to close down.

Funny, we still have the "Roll yer Own" stores here. The difference is, the tobbaco manufacturers have responded with products labeled for Pipes and it's used for Cigarettes. The most recent Colorado Tobacco Tax will affect Cigarettes. When it's enacted, many smokers will be doing rollyerown to get around that tax and that tax will bring in almost zero money. The cost of a pack of Cigarettes will go from 6 to 7 bucks to almost 10 which will make store bought packs disappear from the shelves and be replaced by rollyerowns. In order to tax the rollyerowns it's going to take a lot more than a President's signature on a piece of paper.

One thing that may happen, they may include the AR-15 and the AK-47 into the 1934 NFA. You can argue for or against the requirements but it can happen. If it does, it's not a ban. There are no mandantory seizures of the weapons. It gets handled exactly like the Thompson Model 1921 was. But you can't just call them Assault Rifles. According to more than one recent Court Ruling, you are going to have to be specific with wording like "AR-15/AK-47 and various clones".

First of all, I am not a big fan of the NFA. But I can see why something similar must be on the books. But I find the NFA way too specific in some areas and too vague in others.

Here are some of the points from that law.

1. No more manufacturing of the weapons, parts. Even replacement parts and Modifications and addons. The exception to that would be for Law Enforcement and Military Applications. I believe Colt already sees the handwriting on the wall on that one when they stopped manufacturing of their Model 750 and other AR-15 variants.

2. Voluntary Government Buy backs. Not mandantory.

3. Limits in the transportation of the ARs. You can still own them but you can't go to your favorite gun club and fire them. But you can still fire them on private property.

4. In order to purchase/trade/inherit these weapons, it's going to take an EFL or a FFL license. In other words, only a legally licensed person can obtain one. If you already have one, you are within the law. But if you die, you cannot pass it on to anyone without either the EFL or FFL License. Unless the weapon is totally disabled (i.e. leading in the barrel and disabling the firing mechanism making it a wall hangar).

That's just a thumbnail of it. For the first 10 years, there was almost zero effect in the Thompson Model 1921. But after that, they started to rapidly disappear. Are you going to go out and fire a firearm that you can't repair or get replacement parts for? We are talking about Law Abiding Citizens here, not criminals. But in the end, even the criminals won't have them either except as wall hangars.