Taxes on guns

[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.

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?

No, I didn't miss it. It's just not germain.

 

[hazlnut]

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.

Tax bullets, there's the ticket.

Remember the Chris Rock routine?

 

[Oldguy]

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.

Maybe not a legal argument, but when We The People let our elected representatives know we've had enough of targeted taxation to compel a behavior change, it'll stop. Of course, that means we dare not be selective and support it on some things and not others because if it isn't stopped totally, it becomes a running fight to keep anything from being selectively taxed.

The point is that, as I see it, the first line of defense against the looming targeted taxation of guns is to vehemently oppose additional targeted taxation on tobacco, sugary drinks, junk food and whatever else is in their sights. It's got to be all or nothing or it's a lost cause.

 

[Sarah G]

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.

I like that idea.

 

[SuMar]

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.

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.

Well why don't we just "offer up" a new plan for abortion control. They should implement a big ASS tax on the person wanting to get the abortion.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

The tax on guns will come in the form of the tax Republican hero John Roberts made possible when he alone became responsible for making Obamacare the law of the land - Roberts' opinion defined health insurance as a tax. That opened the door to any form of insurance promoting public health and safety becoming a legal tax.

Not exactly rocket science to know the tax on guns will come in the form of requiring gun owners to carry insurance on all guns. It is a twofer because that is also - like background checks - an informal form of registration, aka, a gun "locator" for government.

Write it down. That is next, likely CA, NY or CT will be among the first.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

I don’t see the connection and, at least to me, you are stretching when stating this is a similar instance. In one, we have the expressed right and not in the other. I just don’t see how the 2 concepts are even remotely related.

Further, taxing guns specifically IS directly taxing a constitutional right, not something that ‘flows’ from a right.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

No, actually. There is no, as far as I know, ‘book’ tax that is applied to books and only books. No one is stating that guns must be exempt from taxation. Just that a targeted tax on guns is unconstitutional as it infringes on a right. Targeted taxation on votes, books, or any other right is unconstitutional and it should be treated with contempt from.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

I like that idea.

Of course you do.

Are you also all right with a large tax on abortion?

When you give in on one right, you give in on all of them. You should be appalled about any idea that trashes rights, not just the rights you like.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Perfectly legal.

In fact, the reason for the increases in taxes for tobacco was to remedy the ills caused by them. Surely the same application can be made for firearms.

 

[candycorn]

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.

I like that idea.

Of course you do.

Are you also all right with a large tax on abortion?

When you give in on one right, you give in on all of them. You should be appalled about any idea that trashes rights, not just the rights you like.

I'm curious, why is it always a woman's issue you guys want to "get even" with? Do you all really see the other gender as an enemy?

 

[Oldguy]

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.

I don’t see the connection and, at least to me, you are stretching when stating this is a similar instance. In one, we have the expressed right and not in the other. I just don’t see how the 2 concepts are even remotely related.

Further, taxing guns specifically IS directly taxing a constitutional right, not something that ‘flows’ from a right.

A "right" isn't concrete. You can lay your hands on a Constitutionally protected gun, but not on the right to have it. You can exercise your right to free speech, but you can't pick it up and put it in your pocket. Rights are ideas, principles, not physical objects. Any physical objects which are protected BY the right can be taxed, apparently. The example someone gave of taxes on books is a perfect example. It's not tax on the right of free speech, but a tax on books written UNDER that right.

And, as I mentioned above, the gun itself does not have to be taxed for a tax to be applied to the purchase or transfer of one. The seller and/or buyer can be taxed for the transaction and/or a sales tax applied, either of which completely avoids the Constitutional issue. Or, an exorbitant fee could be charged for the required background check. Or, something similar to a Value Added Tax could be applied to every step of the manufacturing and transportation of firearms, all of which must be passed onto the consumer and could result in outrageous gun prices. Those are just examples, not predictions or an advocation for such things.

The point is that if the anti-gun folks want to do it, and they apparently do, there are ways they can impose outlandish taxes on guns to discourage the purchase of them which might not raise a Constitutional issue at all. In other words, if they want to apply the same principle which has been applied to tobacco, which is to raise taxes enough to force a change in behavior, they can.

That's why the only way to combat it is to fight against ANY tax or fee, of any kind, levied with the objective of compelling people to change their behavior, even if it's applied to product you're not fond of, like tobacco for instance. The PRINCIPLE is worth fighting for.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

And thus, your argument defeats itself. Good work.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Indeed.
No one questions the power to tax; the question is if the power to tax is applied to the exercise of a right with the intent to regulate said exercise, does that taxation constitute an infringement of that right.
There's no way to soundly argue that it does not.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Sales tax, the same tax we pay on everyting else we buy.

There's no question that if the federal government forced you to pay a punitive tax in order to go to church - drop $150 into the IRS plate as you enter the building - said tax would be ruled unconstitutional by every court that heard it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Tax bullets, there's the ticket.

Which is as constitutuional as levying a $1 punitive tax for every word in a news story, to be paid before the story is published/broadcast.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

I like that idea.

Betting you do -not- like the dea of laying a punitive tax on abortions.
This would be every bit as constitutional on the punitive tax on guns.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Perfectly legal.

Every bit as legal as a punitive tax on abortion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I like that idea.

Of course you do.

Are you also all right with a large tax on abortion?

When you give in on one right, you give in on all of them. You should be appalled about any idea that trashes rights, not just the rights you like.

I'm curious, why is it always a woman's issue you guys want to "get even" with? Do you all really see the other gender as an enemy?

Nice dodge; how about you substantively address what he said?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

I don’t see the connection and, at least to me, you are stretching when stating this is a similar instance. In one, we have the expressed right and not in the other. I just don’t see how the 2 concepts are even remotely related.

Further, taxing guns specifically IS directly taxing a constitutional right, not something that ‘flows’ from a right.

A "right" isn't concrete. You can lay your hands on a Constitutionally protected gun, but not on the right to have it. You can exercise your right to free speech, but you can't pick it up and put it in your pocket. Rights are ideas, principles, not physical objects. Any physical objects which are protected BY the right can be taxed, apparently.

You cannot show where a punitive tax on the exercise of any right has been upheld, and so there is no 'apparent' support for your claim.