Taxes on guns

[jon_berzerk]

Care to cite the amendment or clause in the Constitution which gives you the right not to be exposed to second hand smoke? Or, anything else you find offensive?

While there is no enumerated right to smoke in the Constitution, the whole of the rights protected by it rests upon the principle of free choice. Without free choice, you are not free, with or without a Constitution.

more precisely what in the Constitution gives you the right not to be exposed

to second hand smoke that occurs in a privately owned business that

you have the freedom to walk into or not

I won't argue that point. However, I would argue that the decision should be left up to the business owner and not forced on him by blanket laws.

yes 100% agree

 

[editec]

WE all live in someone else's second hand smoke.

We ALL live downwind.

According to the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics for 2009 there are 254,212,610 registered passenger vehicles. Of these, 193,979,654 were classified as "Light duty vehicle, short wheel base, while another 40,488,025 were listed as "Light duty vehicle, long wheel base." Yet another 8,356,097 were classified as vehicles with 2 axles and 6 tires and 2,617,118 were classified as "Truck, combination." There were approximately 7,929,724 motorcycles in the US in 2009.[5]

 

[martybegan]

If something is not prohibited to the government by the constitution, it is then up to the people working through the legislatures to determine how or if they want to regulate, ban, encourage or even tax a given activity.

In my opinion, the closer said legislative body is to the people voting for it the better, i.e. local is better, but the constituion (and the state constituions) deal with this as well.

I agree. The closer to The People the better. (I wonder if that's because we know where they live... and they know it? LOL)

So, can we assume you would have no problem with heavily increased taxes on guns if they are imposed by a state, county or local government instead of the federal government? Granted, we have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms, but the Courts have decided that right is not absolute and that gun control measures are Constitutional (See: the Heller and McDonald decisions).

No, because through the 14th and 15th amendments the bill of rights is incorporated to the states. So local laws must still follow the constitution, but wherever the consitution is silent, then the State consitutions govern what the localities can and cannot do.

To me the chain is as follows. The people devolve power to the state governments, which then devolve power to lower levels of government as they see fit. The people also devolve power to the federal government, and the federal consitution determines the split in power between the federal government and the state governments.

 

[jon_berzerk]

WE all live in someone else's second hand smoke.

We ALL live downwind.

According to the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics for 2009 there are 254,212,610 registered passenger vehicles. Of these, 193,979,654 were classified as "Light duty vehicle, short wheel base, while another 40,488,025 were listed as "Light duty vehicle, long wheel base." Yet another 8,356,097 were classified as vehicles with 2 axles and 6 tires and 2,617,118 were classified as "Truck, combination." There were approximately 7,929,724 motorcycles in the US in 2009.[5]

time to ban it then

and of course

blame bush

--LOL

 

[Oldguy]

If something is not prohibited to the government by the constitution, it is then up to the people working through the legislatures to determine how or if they want to regulate, ban, encourage or even tax a given activity.

In my opinion, the closer said legislative body is to the people voting for it the better, i.e. local is better, but the constituion (and the state constituions) deal with this as well.

I agree. The closer to The People the better. (I wonder if that's because we know where they live... and they know it? LOL)

So, can we assume you would have no problem with heavily increased taxes on guns if they are imposed by a state, county or local government instead of the federal government? Granted, we have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms, but the Courts have decided that right is not absolute and that gun control measures are Constitutional (See: the Heller and McDonald decisions).

No, because through the 14th and 15th amendments the bill of rights is incorporated to the states. So local laws must still follow the constitution, but wherever the consitution is silent, then the State consitutions govern what the localities can and cannot do.

To me the chain is as follows. The people devolve power to the state governments, which then devolve power to lower levels of government as they see fit. The people also devolve power to the federal government, and the federal consitution determines the split in power between the federal government and the state governments.

But, there is no Constitutional prohibition upon taxing firearms. We already have them so the Constitutional question is settled. The only thing left to decide is how much.

 

[Spoonman]

Uh-uh, it's YOU we're laughing at:

The Senate voted to move forward on gun control Thursday, clearing the first of what is expected to be many 60-vote hurdles for the legislation.
In a 68-31 vote, the Senate approved a procedural motion that will allow debate on the Democratic measure to begin. Sixty votes were required for approval.


Read more: Senate moves forward on gun control - The Hill's Floor Action

yea and the house will crush it. game over - done

16 Republican senators voted for it. You sure about that?

yep

 

[Spoonman]

Uh-uh, it's YOU we're laughing at:

The Senate voted to move forward on gun control Thursday, clearing the first of what is expected to be many 60-vote hurdles for the legislation.
In a 68-31 vote, the Senate approved a procedural motion that will allow debate on the Democratic measure to begin. Sixty votes were required for approval.


Read more: Senate moves forward on gun control - The Hill's Floor Action

yea and the house will crush it. game over - done

16 Republican senators voted for it. You sure about that?

i also see this bill adds to the rights of gun owners. it says if you live in a state with unrestricted carry rights, those rights extend ot any state, even if that state does not allow its residents to carry. so if i live in a state that allows me to carryI can now take my gun into anystate legally and carry under the laws of my state Wooo Hoooo! I am down with that one for sure

 

[M14 Shooter]

I agree. The closer to The People the better. (I wonder if that's because we know where they live... and they know it? LOL)

So, can we assume you would have no problem with heavily increased taxes on guns if they are imposed by a state, county or local government instead of the federal government? Granted, we have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms, but the Courts have decided that right is not absolute and that gun control measures are Constitutional (See: the Heller and McDonald decisions).

No, because through the 14th and 15th amendments the bill of rights is incorporated to the states. So local laws must still follow the constitution, but wherever the consitution is silent, then the State consitutions govern what the localities can and cannot do.

To me the chain is as follows. The people devolve power to the state governments, which then devolve power to lower levels of government as they see fit. The people also devolve power to the federal government, and the federal consitution determines the split in power between the federal government and the state governments.

But, there is no Constitutional prohibition upon taxing firearms.

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.

 

[Spoonman]

I agree. The closer to The People the better. (I wonder if that's because we know where they live... and they know it? LOL)

So, can we assume you would have no problem with heavily increased taxes on guns if they are imposed by a state, county or local government instead of the federal government? Granted, we have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms, but the Courts have decided that right is not absolute and that gun control measures are Constitutional (See: the Heller and McDonald decisions).

No, because through the 14th and 15th amendments the bill of rights is incorporated to the states. So local laws must still follow the constitution, but wherever the consitution is silent, then the State consitutions govern what the localities can and cannot do.

To me the chain is as follows. The people devolve power to the state governments, which then devolve power to lower levels of government as they see fit. The people also devolve power to the federal government, and the federal consitution determines the split in power between the federal government and the state governments.

But, there is no Constitutional prohibition upon taxing firearms. We already have them so the Constitutional question is settled. The only thing left to decide is how much.

as long as we tax voting and speaking too. i say we treat liberals like AR-15's and tax them more to speak

 

[M14 Shooter]

yea and the house will crush it. game over - done

16 Republican senators voted for it. You sure about that?

i also see this bill adds to the rights of gun owners. it says if you live in a state with unrestricted carry rights, those rights extend ot any state, even if that state does not allow its residents to carry. so if i live in a state that allows me to carryI can now take my gun into anystate legally and carry under the laws of my state Wooo Hoooo! I am down with that one for sure

I did not see that. Can you cite?

 

[martybegan]

I agree. The closer to The People the better. (I wonder if that's because we know where they live... and they know it? LOL)

So, can we assume you would have no problem with heavily increased taxes on guns if they are imposed by a state, county or local government instead of the federal government? Granted, we have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms, but the Courts have decided that right is not absolute and that gun control measures are Constitutional (See: the Heller and McDonald decisions).

No, because through the 14th and 15th amendments the bill of rights is incorporated to the states. So local laws must still follow the constitution, but wherever the consitution is silent, then the State consitutions govern what the localities can and cannot do.

To me the chain is as follows. The people devolve power to the state governments, which then devolve power to lower levels of government as they see fit. The people also devolve power to the federal government, and the federal consitution determines the split in power between the federal government and the state governments.

But, there is no Constitutional prohibition upon taxing firearms. We already have them so the Constitutional question is settled. The only thing left to decide is how much.

Taxing firearms to the exception of other items (so a general sales tax is OK) would constitute infringement.

 

[Oldguy]

No, because through the 14th and 15th amendments the bill of rights is incorporated to the states. So local laws must still follow the constitution, but wherever the consitution is silent, then the State consitutions govern what the localities can and cannot do.

To me the chain is as follows. The people devolve power to the state governments, which then devolve power to lower levels of government as they see fit. The people also devolve power to the federal government, and the federal consitution determines the split in power between the federal government and the state governments.

But, there is no Constitutional prohibition upon taxing firearms.

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.

You may be right, but you may also be wrong. Any Constitutional scholar will tell you that there are two kinds of rights protected by that document: Enumerated and implied. Only those rights specifically mentioned in the Constitution and its Amendments are enumerated. All others are implied from the overall tone of the history of the formation of the United States, the Declaration of Independence and whatever other source from common law or precedent which can be extracted.

For instance, Roe v. Wade was not a taxation ruling or a ruling on an enumerated right. There is no Constitutionally protected right to have an abortion. There IS, however, an implied right to privacy which the court found in the due process clause of the 14th Amendment and THAT is what they ruled upon: That the state had denied "Roe" her implied right to privacy.

Now..let's take gun laws. While the right to keep and bear arms IS an enumerated right in the Constitution, The People of the various states have the implied right to regulate that enumerated right however they see fit, so long as it does not totally deny a citizen the right to have a gun. The SC said so in both Heller and McDonald. In other words, there is no Constitutional prohibition on gun control short of a total ban and, since the states have the right under their own Constitutions and the Federal Constitution to impose taxes, the right to tax firearms is implied.

Moreover, since most of the states considering levying heavy taxes on guns and ammunition are staying their actions as "sales taxes," the 2nd Amendment issue might not even come up.

The point is that I think they CAN do it and the push for higher tobacco taxes paved the way for it. Worse, as tobacco restrictions grow worse and more draconian, it continues to provide a legal precedent for doing whatever the government wishes to do against any product or behavior it can dream up. Never underestimate the legal authority and power of precedent.

That's why these new proposed higher cigarette taxes need to be opposed as a vehicle for preventing the very same thing being done to guns.

 

[Spoonman]

But, there is no Constitutional prohibition upon taxing firearms.

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.

You may be right, but you may also be wrong. Any Constitutional scholar will tell you that there are two kinds of rights protected by that document: Enumerated and implied. Only those rights specifically mentioned in the Constitution and its Amendments are enumerated. All others are implied from the overall tone of the history of the formation of the United States, the Declaration of Independence and whatever other source from common law or precedent which can be extracted.

For instance, Roe v. Wade was not a taxation ruling or a ruling on an enumerated right. There is no Constitutionally protected right to have an abortion. There IS, however, an implied right to privacy which the court found in the due process clause of the 14th Amendment and THAT is what they ruled upon: That the state had denied "Roe" her implied right to privacy.

Now..let's take gun laws. While the right to keep and bear arms IS an enumerated right in the Constitution, The People of the various states have the implied right to regulate that enumerated right however they see fit, so long as it does not totally deny a citizen the right to have a gun. The SC said so in both Heller and McDonald. In other words, there is no Constitutional prohibition on gun control short of a total ban and, since the states have the right under their own Constitutions and the Federal Constitution to impose taxes, the right to tax firearms is implied.

Moreover, most of the states considering levying heavy taxes on guns and ammunition are staying their actions as "sales taxes," the 2nd Amendment issue might not even come up.

The point is that I think they CAN do it and the push for higher tobacco taxes paved the way for it. Worse, as tobacco restrictions grow worse and more draconian, it continues to provide a legal precedent for doing whatever the government wishes to do against any product or behavior it can dream up. Never underestimate the legal authority and power of precedent.

That's why these new proposed higher cigarette taxes need to be opposed as a vehicle for preventing the very same thing being done to guns.

Now..let's take gun laws. While the right to keep and bear arms IS an enumerated right in the Constitution, The People of the various states have the implied right to regulate that enumerated right however they see fit, so long as it does not totally deny a citizen the right to have a gun. The SC said so in both Heller and McDonald. In other words, there is no Constitutional prohibition on gun control short of a total ban and, since the states have the right under their own Constitutions and the Federal Constitution to impose taxes, the right to tax firearms is implied.



which is infringment and by the very wording of the constitution, wrong. because it is done doesn't make it right. corporations are now people, according to scotus too. is everyone in agreement with that?

 

[M14 Shooter]

But, there is no Constitutional prohibition upon taxing firearms.

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.

You may be right...

There's no "may" involved; I am unquestionably right.

Now..let's take gun laws. While the right to keep and bear arms IS an enumerated right in the Constitution, The People of the various states have the implied right to regulate that enumerated right however they see fit, so long as it does not totally deny a citizen the right to have a gun.

Absolutely incorrect.
Regulaton may not -infringe- on the right. Infringement involves more than the total denial of the exercise of a right, as shown in Heller. A tax designed to restrict the exercise of the right - any right - in an infringement of that right.

The SC said so in both Heller and McDonald.

No such text exists.

Moreover, most of the states considering levying heavy taxes on guns and ammunition are staying their actions as "sales taxes," the 2nd Amendment issue might not even come up.

These are general taxes equally laid on all items; that you can lay a general taxation in this context without running afoul of the constitution does not in any way necessitate that you can similarly lay a specific tax on a specific item intended to regulate the exercise of the right associated with said item.

Your argument thusly fails.

 

[Oldguy]

which is infringment and by the very wording of the constitution, wrong. because it is done doesn't make it right. corporations are now people, according to scotus too. is everyone in agreement with that?

It doesn't matter if we agree with it or not. Under our Constitution, the Supreme Court gets the final say and that's that. There is no higher court of appeal other than the elected legislature. Public opinion only means something in the context of Congressional action. Congress CAN pass legislation to over-rule the Supreme Court, though they rarely have.

But, here's the most important point: Our democracy only works when The People accept that law as it's written at the moment. Any time we decide we will not abide by a law because we don't happen to like it, we become criminals in the eyes of the law and, in fact, thumb our nose at the very Constitution we claim to love.

That does not mean we can't agitate to change the law, but until it IS changed we are obligated to obey even laws we don't like or forfeit our right to call ourselves American's.

 

[martybegan]

which is infringment and by the very wording of the constitution, wrong. because it is done doesn't make it right. corporations are now people, according to scotus too. is everyone in agreement with that?

It doesn't matter if we agree with it or not. Under our Constitution, the Supreme Court gets the final say and that's that. There is no higher court of appeal other than the elected legislature. Public opinion only means something in the context of Congressional action. Congress CAN pass legislation to over-rule the Supreme Court, though they rarely have.

But, here's the most important point: Our democracy only works when The People accept that law as it's written at the moment. Any time we decide we will not abide by a law because we don't happen to like it, we become criminals in the eyes of the law and, in fact, thumb our nose at the very Constitution we claim to love.

That does not mean we can't agitate to change the law, but until it IS changed we are obligated to obey even laws we don't like or forfeit our right to call ourselves American's.

If a law is so onerous to follow, should a person just accept it? By your logic if somehow a law was passed that returned black people to slavery, they should just accept the law and hope normal legal channels will eventually fix the situation.

 

[Spoonman]

which is infringment and by the very wording of the constitution, wrong. because it is done doesn't make it right. corporations are now people, according to scotus too. is everyone in agreement with that?

It doesn't matter if we agree with it or not. Under our Constitution, the Supreme Court gets the final say and that's that. There is no higher court of appeal other than the elected legislature. Public opinion only means something in the context of Congressional action. Congress CAN pass legislation to over-rule the Supreme Court, though they rarely have.

But, here's the most important point: Our democracy only works when The People accept that law as it's written at the moment. Any time we decide we will not abide by a law because we don't happen to like it, we become criminals in the eyes of the law and, in fact, thumb our nose at the very Constitution we claim to love.

That does not mean we can't agitate to change the law, but until it IS changed we are obligated to obey even laws we don't like or forfeit our right to call ourselves American's.

so free speech is no longer valid because the moment has changed. and all men where created equal is no longer valid because at the moment we didn't have a ton of minorities in the country. we need to change that too now, according to your logic anyway. and you know what, screw this due process. the courts are too burdened. that crazy shit needs to change too

 

[Desperado]

This is the Democratic answer to everything...
Tax it, Tax it again, and again. It is never ending
Simply because of Democratic Paranoia.

 

[Spoonman]

which is infringment and by the very wording of the constitution, wrong. because it is done doesn't make it right. corporations are now people, according to scotus too. is everyone in agreement with that?

It doesn't matter if we agree with it or not. Under our Constitution, the Supreme Court gets the final say and that's that. There is no higher court of appeal other than the elected legislature. Public opinion only means something in the context of Congressional action. Congress CAN pass legislation to over-rule the Supreme Court, though they rarely have.

But, here's the most important point: Our democracy only works when The People accept that law as it's written at the moment. Any time we decide we will not abide by a law because we don't happen to like it, we become criminals in the eyes of the law and, in fact, thumb our nose at the very Constitution we claim to love.

That does not mean we can't agitate to change the law, but until it IS changed we are obligated to obey even laws we don't like or forfeit our right to call ourselves American's.

perfect. so here you have finally shown the falicy of your argument. The constitution is not a law. it is the governing policy of what this country was founded on. but it isn't a law. the right to free speech is not a law. the right to practice religion freely is not a law. the right to own a gun is not a law. but the constitution clearly states the government shall make no laws against and shall not infringe on. it is very clear that these inalinable rights are just that. these rights are not to be changed. these are the freedoms this country was founded on. and any laws written that do are wrong and unconstitutional based on the explicit dictates of the constitution. make no laws against and do not infringe upon. there is no further argument

 

[Borillar]

Law abiding people who buy their guns legally will pay the tax and be punished for exercising their legal rights and criminals won't pay the tax.

Stupid plan.

Let me clarify something. I'm not proposing such a thing and, in fact, would vehemently oppose it as I oppose ANY tax to compel behavior modification because I think the loss of freedom isn't worth the results.

However, such cigarette-like taxes on guns has been proposed, and I guarantee you WILL be offered up sooner rather than later.

The whole purpose of this thread isn't to offer up a new plan for gun control, but to highlight that once you support the notion that taxes are a legitimate tool to compel behavior modification for smokers, you've already lost the battle to keep it being done to gun owners. The justification will be the same: Public safety. And, you've already bought off on that.

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.

A person does have a right to privacy. A person should own his own life, health, and body. This is why I have always been opposed to drug laws, prohibition, etc. We don't need a bunch of nosybodies dictating every aspect of our lives - who we can associate with, what we can eat, what we can drink, what we can smoke, what we can think.