Taxes on guns

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Wrong, a special tax just for firearms violates the "shall not infringe" part of the amendment. A general tax that applies across the board to all products is the power of the Government and thus is not an infringement. A special tax designed just to effect firearms is an Infringement, pretty simple concept.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Wrong, a special tax just for firearms violates the "shall not infringe" part of the amendment. A general tax that applies across the board to all products is the power of the Government and thus is not an infringement. A special tax designed just to effect firearms is an Infringement, pretty simple concept.

Further we have precedent and law on our side when we make the claim. Or do you not recall the decision that states a poll tax on voters infringed their rights?

 

[FA_Q2]

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 am not. This is just one more instance of the federal government usurping the states and we should not accept it even when it is a provision that we agree with.

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

Actually, no one has voted for the bill yet. This was a cloture bill only.

You are ignoring how the process actually works. The bill has not passed the senate and when it does, I would venture a guess that there will be very little in the way of republican support for it.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

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

Actually, no one has voted for the bill yet. This was a cloture bill only.

You are ignoring how the process actually works. The bill has not passed the senate and when it does, I would venture a guess that there will be very little in the way of republican support for it.

exactly

however they should not have done so until at least a "bill" had been written

getting sick of this you have to pass it to see what is in it jazz

the bill is now available on line

 

[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. We already have them so the Constitutional question is settled. The only thing left to decide is how much.

Wrong, a special tax just for firearms violates the "shall not infringe" part of the amendment. A general tax that applies across the board to all products is the power of the Government and thus is not an infringement. A special tax designed just to effect firearms is an Infringement, pretty simple concept.

Not necessarily so. The Supreme Court long ago ruled that the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of States could be taxed. The issue at hand was federal taxation of state chartered corporations. There is, therefore, a precedent for taxing Constitutional rights. In subsequent rulings, the Court has advanced the idea that states and individuals are equal in terms of protected rights and that a federal tax may be applied to individuals without usurping the states right's so long as the tax is equally applied across all states.

Though I'm not Constitutional lawyer, it seems to me that a tax on the purchase of firearms, of any amount, could be imposed by the federal government SO LONG AS the purchaser is the one being taxed, not the gun itself, and so long as it was equally applied to every state.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Wrong, a special tax just for firearms violates the "shall not infringe" part of the amendment. A general tax that applies across the board to all products is the power of the Government and thus is not an infringement. A special tax designed just to effect firearms is an Infringement, pretty simple concept.

Not necessarily so. The Supreme Court long ago ruled that the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of States could be taxed.

Cite the case.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

Wrong, a special tax just for firearms violates the "shall not infringe" part of the amendment. A general tax that applies across the board to all products is the power of the Government and thus is not an infringement. A special tax designed just to effect firearms is an Infringement, pretty simple concept.

Not necessarily so. The Supreme Court long ago ruled that the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of States could be taxed. The issue at hand was federal taxation of state chartered corporations. There is, therefore, a precedent for taxing Constitutional rights. In subsequent rulings, the Court has advanced the idea that states and individuals are equal in terms of protected rights and that a federal tax may be applied to individuals without usurping the states right's so long as the tax is equally applied across all states.

Though I'm not Constitutional lawyer, it seems to me that a tax on the purchase of firearms, of any amount, could be imposed by the federal government SO LONG AS the purchaser is the one being taxed, not the gun itself, and so long as it was equally applied to every state.

we passed a firearms freed act

ignoring the federal law for firearms

and accessories made in the state and remain in the state

 

[Oldguy]

Wrong, a special tax just for firearms violates the "shall not infringe" part of the amendment. A general tax that applies across the board to all products is the power of the Government and thus is not an infringement. A special tax designed just to effect firearms is an Infringement, pretty simple concept.

Not necessarily so. The Supreme Court long ago ruled that the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of States could be taxed.

Cite the case.

Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.

 

[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.

 

[Oldguy]

Wrong, a special tax just for firearms violates the "shall not infringe" part of the amendment. A general tax that applies across the board to all products is the power of the Government and thus is not an infringement. A special tax designed just to effect firearms is an Infringement, pretty simple concept.

Not necessarily so. The Supreme Court long ago ruled that the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of States could be taxed. The issue at hand was federal taxation of state chartered corporations. There is, therefore, a precedent for taxing Constitutional rights. In subsequent rulings, the Court has advanced the idea that states and individuals are equal in terms of protected rights and that a federal tax may be applied to individuals without usurping the states right's so long as the tax is equally applied across all states.

Though I'm not Constitutional lawyer, it seems to me that a tax on the purchase of firearms, of any amount, could be imposed by the federal government SO LONG AS the purchaser is the one being taxed, not the gun itself, and so long as it was equally applied to every state.

we passed a firearms freed act

ignoring the federal law for firearms

and accessories made in the state and remain in the state

We'll just have to wait and see if it survives a court challenge, assuming one is mounted.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.[/QUOTE]


[BFlint v. Stone][/B]

must be a pretty old case

--LOL

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not necessarily so. The Supreme Court long ago ruled that the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of States could be taxed.

Cite the case.

Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.

Cite the text that you believe allows for the federal government to tax the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms w/o violating the constitution.

 

[Oldguy]

Cite the case.

Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.

Cite the text that you believe allows for the federal government to tax the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms w/o violating the constitution.

I never said it did. You can't directly tax a right. But, you CAN tax something that flows from a Constitutionally guaranteed right so long as it's equally applied across all states. That's what Flint said.

Moreover, in Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co, the Court ruled that taxes must not be equally applied to corporations and individuals. In other words, targeted taxation which is higher for some things than on others is not a violation of the Equal Protection clause.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Cite the case.

Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.

Cite the text that you believe allows for the federal government to tax the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms w/o violating the constitution.

the tracy case

dealt with the federal power to income tax a corporation

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Wrong, a special tax just for firearms violates the "shall not infringe" part of the amendment. A general tax that applies across the board to all products is the power of the Government and thus is not an infringement. A special tax designed just to effect firearms is an Infringement, pretty simple concept.

Further we have precedent and law on our side when we make the claim. Or do you not recall the decision that states a poll tax on voters infringed their rights?

I guess you missed this right?

 

[editec]

We have the right to free speech, too but we still pay taxes on books and so forth.

Of course I understand the potential for abuse stemming from a FEDERAL tax on weapons, I just don't think you're going to find a legal argument to prevent it.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

There are already 300 million guns in circulation. Good luck with that plan.

 

[WillowTree]

We have the right to free speech, too but we still pay taxes on books and so forth.

Of course I understand the potential for abuse stemming from a FEDERAL tax on weapons, I just don't think you're going to find a legal argument to prevent it.

Agreed, the Feds just took over health care by calling it a tax.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I think we should tax breathing.