Taxes on guns

[Oldguy]

Sucking the combustion byproducts of the tobacco plant into your lungs is not a consitutionally protected right, and thus is susceptable to all sorts of laws, even an outright ban if someone decided along the way to do it.

Since smoking is not a right, methods such as onerous taxes to prevent such use, while not something I prefer, are not barred by the consitution.

Placing a tax on firearms for the sole purpose of making them too expensive to own by some people meets the definintion of "infringment" to me, and thus should be struck down as consitutional.

Something like this also raises the issue that the rich and well off (or well connected) would have easier access to firearms than someone not as rich, well of, or well connected.

Really?

“There are costs incurred as a result of gun violence which are borne by the general taxpayer — both social and economical,” California Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, who put forward a nickel ammo tax proposal in January, said in an interview. “There ought to be a cost … to those who want to buy firearms.”



Using sales taxes as a gun control tool - Rachael Bade - POLITICO.com


Sound familiar?

You have to realize California is in such bad shape they want to tax everything. If they do it to guns...next they will be going for a tax to even use your toilet. Maybe a five cent tax everytime you flush.

So..just because it's California, what they're doing isn't possible in other states or at the federal level? (ps: Other states are already looking at the same thing).

The point is that you shouldn't ignore it just because you don't happen to like California.

 

[martybegan]

If tobacco products can be heavily taxed to encourage or force people to quit smoking for the "good" of society, why can't the same logic be applied to firearms?

Would punitive taxes on guns, making them less attractive and affordable, be a legitimate means of limiting the damage guns can do to others? The Second Amendment does not prevent behavior modification taxes, so that argument is out.

"The Second Amendment does not prevent behavior modification taxes, so that argument is out."

You should have been a Lawyer OldMan, you're Bullshit Technique is without peer.

Well then...show me how the Second Amendment prohibits taxes on guns...especially since we already have them. Since there isn't a Constitutional prohibition on applying taxes to guns, isn't the only question left to answer is how much?

The issue is the targeted taxing. If you apply a sales tax across the board on all purchases, you are not taxing with an attempt to infringe, you are taxing to create revenue from sales in general.

The problem is that these taxes are soley to make owning a firearm more difficult (despite what anyone says, this is the case) and thus are infringement.

There is a consitutional ban on infringing on my right to own a firearm. If you create a tax that prices me out of owning one, is that not infringement?

The same goes for these mandatory insurance schemes.

 

[Goodoledays]

Really?

“There are costs incurred as a result of gun violence which are borne by the general taxpayer — both social and economical,” California Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, who put forward a nickel ammo tax proposal in January, said in an interview. “There ought to be a cost … to those who want to buy firearms.”



Using sales taxes as a gun control tool - Rachael Bade - POLITICO.com


Sound familiar?

You have to realize California is in such bad shape they want to tax everything. If they do it to guns...next they will be going for a tax to even use your toilet. Maybe a five cent tax everytime you flush.

So..just because it's California, what they're doing isn't possible in other states or at the federal level? (ps: Other states are already looking at the same thing).

The point is that you shouldn't ignore it just because you don't happen to like California.

I used to like California very much. Visited often. But since its turned into a hell hole and given to the illegals its not even considered a state anymore. Thats why so many are moving to Texas. You want to pay those taxes then go ahead and move there. Im sure you'll love it.

 

[Spoonman]

If tobacco products can be heavily taxed to encourage or force people to quit smoking for the "good" of society, why can't the same logic be applied to firearms?

Would punitive taxes on guns, making them less attractive and affordable, be a legitimate means of limiting the damage guns can do to others? The Second Amendment does not prevent behavior modification taxes, so that argument is out.

are cigarettes a constitutional right? hey lets put a tax on voting

 

[Spoonman]

if shithead politicians ever put a tax on guns just remember, guns purchased illegally are not taxed. suport the black market

 

[Oldguy]

"The Second Amendment does not prevent behavior modification taxes, so that argument is out."

You should have been a Lawyer OldMan, you're Bullshit Technique is without peer.

Well then...show me how the Second Amendment prohibits taxes on guns...especially since we already have them. Since there isn't a Constitutional prohibition on applying taxes to guns, isn't the only question left to answer is how much?

The issue is the targeted taxing. If you apply a sales tax across the board on all purchases, you are not taxing with an attempt to infringe, you are taxing to create revenue from sales in general.

The problem is that these taxes are soley to make owning a firearm more difficult (despite what anyone says, this is the case) and thus are infringement.

There is a consitutional ban on infringing on my right to own a firearm. If you create a tax that prices me out of owning one, is that not infringement?

The same goes for these mandatory insurance schemes.

The Courts would have to decide what constitutes infringement and what doesn't. I'm not as sanguine about that as you seem to be.

 

[boedicca]

If tobacco products can be heavily taxed to encourage or force people to quit smoking for the "good" of society, why can't the same logic be applied to firearms?

Would punitive taxes on guns, making them less attractive and affordable, be a legitimate means of limiting the damage guns can do to others? The Second Amendment does not prevent behavior modification taxes, so that argument is out.

Taxes cause an undue burden which can be classified as "infringement" on 2nd Amendment Rights.

 

[Spoonman]

If tobacco products can be heavily taxed to encourage or force people to quit smoking for the "good" of society, why can't the same logic be applied to firearms?

Would punitive taxes on guns, making them less attractive and affordable, be a legitimate means of limiting the damage guns can do to others? The Second Amendment does not prevent behavior modification taxes, so that argument is out.

Taxes cause an undue burden which can be classified as "infringement" on 2nd Amendment Rights.

leave it to liberals to want to tax our constitutional rights.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

This would be the tired dem solution tax tax tax. What else is new.

 

[Spoonman]

This would be the tired dem solution tax tax tax. What else is new.

you know taxes on ammuition are rigth around the corner. NY is already floating the idea.

 

[FA_Q2]

Well then...show me how the Second Amendment prohibits taxes on guns...especially since we already have them. Since there isn't a Constitutional prohibition on applying taxes to guns, isn't the only question left to answer is how much?

The issue is the targeted taxing. If you apply a sales tax across the board on all purchases, you are not taxing with an attempt to infringe, you are taxing to create revenue from sales in general.

The problem is that these taxes are soley to make owning a firearm more difficult (despite what anyone says, this is the case) and thus are infringement.

There is a consitutional ban on infringing on my right to own a firearm. If you create a tax that prices me out of owning one, is that not infringement?

The same goes for these mandatory insurance schemes.

The Courts would have to decide what constitutes infringement and what doesn't. I'm not as sanguine about that as you seem to be.

The essentially did when they ruled on poll taxes but that really does not matter. Sure, the court, at some time or another, might rule on this but that does not stop us from debating the point here and now.

 

[Oldstyle]

So basically what you're asking for is the ability to place punitive taxes on guns that make ownership so expensive that many Americans couldn't afford them?

I'm curious...if a tax was imposed on abortions in the same manner...what would the response be from the Left? You might want to think on this "solution" long and hard before you start trying to do end runs around the constitution. Know what I'm saying?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Taxing the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms with the intent to restrict said exercise violates the constitution every bit as much as so taxing the exercise of the right to an abortion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Better yet, mandatory liability insurance for gun owners.

This is just as unconstitutional as mandating libel/slander insurance for news outlets.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

If tobacco products can be heavily taxed to encourage or force people to quit smoking for the "good" of society, why can't the same logic be applied to firearms?

Would punitive taxes on guns, making them less attractive and affordable, be a legitimate means of limiting the damage guns can do to others? The Second Amendment does not prevent behavior modification taxes, so that argument is out.

It's possible, the Democrat Whites and the KKK imposed very large taxes in the South in order to prevent poor blacks from buying guns.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Since smoking is not a right,

The enumeration of certain rights, in this Constitution, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since smoking is a victimless crime, what measures/regulations are justified to compel the behavior of not smoking?

(This does not include smoking in public places/smoking on your children, since there are victims in those crimes, this is assuming you're smoking privately or with other smokers).

 

[M14 Shooter]

Since smoking is not a right,

The enumeration of certain rights, in this Constitution, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since smoking is a victimless crime....

So is owning an* 'assault weapon'**, 10***x30****rd magazines and 300rds***** of ammunition.

* or any other number
** or any other firearm
*** or any other number
**** or any other capacity
***** or any other amount

 

[Spoonman]

Since smoking is not a right,

The enumeration of certain rights, in this Constitution, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since smoking is a victimless crime, what measures/regulations are justified to compel the behavior of not smoking?

(This does not include smoking in public places/smoking on your children, since there are victims in those crimes, this is assuming you're smoking privately or with other smokers).

owning a gun is a victimless crime.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Since smoking is not a right,

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since smoking is a victimless crime, what measures/regulations are justified to compel the behavior of not smoking?

(This does not include smoking in public places/smoking on your children, since there are victims in those crimes, this is assuming you're smoking privately or with other smokers).

owning a gun is a victimless crime.

Yes, I agree with that, did I say something that suggested otherwise? I'm attacking the moron who proclaimed that smoking is not a right.

 

[Oldstyle]

Since smoking is not a right,

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since smoking is a victimless crime, what measures/regulations are justified to compel the behavior of not smoking?

(This does not include smoking in public places/smoking on your children, since there are victims in those crimes, this is assuming you're smoking privately or with other smokers).

owning a gun is a victimless crime.

And that right there folks is why the left will never be satisfied with a tax or a limit on magazine size. People like Spoonman will never be happy until the ownership of guns is a crime.