Bill to Increase Gun Taxes.

[Ranb]

Grossjean v American press and Minneapolis Star tribune v. Commissioner are the cases that address taxes imposed on a civil right can be unconstitutional.

Well, Wikipedia says in part, "Specifically, the court found the law similar to the British Stamp Act of 1712 in that it would it suppress free speech through taxation and allowing a similar law would be against the clear Founders' Intent of the Bill of Rights."

I suppose it only applies to the 1st amendment. When it's guns then they can tax you; don't like it then you can spend ten years in prison for evading the tax. I suppose I don't dislike paying that tax enough.

In the other case the state of Minnesota demonstrated no such justification to impose a special tax on a select few newspaper publishers. I suppose those people like me are not a "select few".

 

[BobTheCoward]

Well, Wikipedia says in part, "Specifically, the court found the law similar to the British Stamp Act of 1712 in that it would it suppress free speech through taxation and allowing a similar law would be against the clear Founders' Intent of the Bill of Rights."

I suppose it only applies to the 1st amendment. When it's guns then they can tax you; don't like it then you can spend ten years in prison for evading the tax. I suppose I don't dislike paying that tax enough.

In the other case the state of Minnesota demonstrated no such justification to impose a special tax on a select few newspaper publishers. I suppose those people like me are not a "select few".

You would have to sue and seek an injunction after it is signed into law to find out.

 

[mgidm86]

In general, I don't like taxes that target one, specific, sector of the economy unless it is effectively a "use tax", where using the item costs society, so you pay for it. For example, a gasoline tax is a sort of use tax. When you use the roads, they require repair. The more gasoline you use, the more you use the roads, so it makes sense to pay for that.

Guns and ammo are kind of sort of a little like that, but not much. I can't say I'm a fan of this tax proposal. You might be able to convince me that all gun users are paying the cost of gun misuse, which makes a marginal amount of sense, but it's stretching things.

Moreover, I don't like politicians who propose a tax on something because that thing has gotten a bunch of bad press lately. It's grandstanding, rather than addressing any actual problem.

I also wonder if these higher taxes will make them that much more valuable to thieves who want to steal them. Example: here in Cali, the government is taxing marijuana right back into the black market.

 

[Beerina]

I pay taxes on my hobbies too. I say tax the hell out of it. Multiple gun makers are filing for bankruptcy and statistics show that less people are buying guns. The people that own guns are buying more of them. No one is forcing anyone to buy guns. If you don't want to pay the taxes then don't buy them. Seems easy as hell to me.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

If you want to speak freely, then pay the taxes. Else don't speak.

 

[Ranb]

You would have to sue and seek an injunction after it is signed into law to find out.

That might cost me more than my entire gun collection in lawyer's fees.

 

[Meadmaker]

I suppose there might be a constitutional case against the tax if it were argued that the tax was specifically intended to make it harder to exercise a constitutional right, presumably the right to keep and bear arms.


I think, though, that the counterargument would be that the tax is designed to raise funds to cover the cost of exercising that constitutional right.

 

[Ranb]

Seeing as how the misuse of registered short barreled rifles/shotguns, silencers and machine guns is extremely rare I'd have to say that the $200 tax collected on each has put those who are concerned about it far in the black.

 

[casebro]

I suppose there might be a constitutional case against the tax if it were argued that the tax was specifically intended to make it harder to exercise a constitutional right, presumably the right to keep and bear arms.


I think, though, that the counterargument would be that the tax is designed to raise funds to cover the cost of exercising that constitutional right.

But the money is not going to health care for gunshot sufferers. Or to repair the bullet holes in road side signs. It's going to anti gun bureaucracies.

And a related aside- The excise tax on guns that Ranb mentioned was put in place by gun users themselves. It's part of the Pittman-Robertson act, to fund wildlife management, so gun users can continue to hunt.

The taxes mentioned in this thread have one purpose only- to infringe on the rights of the law abiding citizen.

Go ahead, walk your way though the Bill of Rights, look for a taxable one.

 

[Meadmaker]

But the money is not going to health care for gunshot sufferers. Or to repair the bullet holes in road side signs. It's going to anti gun bureaucracies.

And a related aside- The excise tax on guns that Ranb mentioned was put in place by gun users themselves. It's part of the Pittman-Robertson act, to fund wildlife management, so gun users can continue to hunt.

The taxes mentioned in this thread have one purpose only- to infringe on the rights of the law abiding citizen.

Go ahead, walk your way though the Bill of Rights, look for a taxable one.

"community-oriented policing services" are "anti-gun bureaucracies"? (Repeat for all the other earmarks of the bill)


And, so, the excise tax is a demonstration that it makes sense to apply a tax on gun users to fund the things for which the gun exists. That makes sense. Just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean doesn't mean you have a right to expect others to pay for it.

For example, in order to exercise the right to peaceably assemble, you have to get parade permits and pay all sorts of costs. There was a big rally on Pennsylvania avenue recently. They wanted to use the National Mall, but they couldn't get a permit. To make that rally happen, they had to pay for all sorts of things from police services to portable toilets. Fortunately for them, a lot of people came to their aid and made donations to make it all happen. I have no idea how much it cost, or how much they paid, but it wasn't free.

I think where this proposed tax could conceivably run afoul of the constitution is if they could convince the high nine that the intended purpose was actually to restrict a constitutional right. The government can't pass laws that attempt to prevent people from exercising their rights. That's a tall order, though. You would first have to convince them that by buying guns, you were exercising a constitutional right. Based on previous Supreme Court rulings, I think that would be a tough sell for "firearms other than rifles or revolvers", or for certain types of rifles, or any sort of weapon with "interchangeable upper receivers". I think you would lose in court insisting that those were a matter of constitutional right, so you would certainly have no argument about the tax on them. For the rifles and revolvers, previous Supreme Court rulings have been consistent with the constitutional right to keep those arms, so you might convince the court that there is no cost to society for you buying your pistols, so there is no justification for a tax on them.

 

[Ranb]

" Based on previous Supreme Court rulings, I think that would be a tough sell for "firearms other than rifles or revolvers", or for certain types of rifles, or any sort of weapon with "interchangeable upper receivers".

If you're thinking of modular guns like the AR-15, they are just rifles and nothing more. Compared to what we had in the 1790's, they are even less advanced compared to the weapons we have now.

I think you would lose in court insisting that those were a matter of constitutional right, so you would certainly have no argument about the tax on them. For the rifles and revolvers, previous Supreme Court rulings have been consistent with the constitutional right to keep those arms, so you might convince the court that there is no cost to society for you buying your pistols, so there is no justification for a tax on them.

I wonder what they would think of a $500 flat tax?

 

[mgidm86]

Seeing as how the misuse of registered short barreled rifles/shotguns, silencers and machine guns is extremely rare I'd have to say that the $200 tax collected on each has put those who are concerned about it far in the black.

These taxes sound prohibitively high. Did guns suddenly become that much more expensive for society to have around? I thought gun violence was dropping? I'm sure their is no political motivation behind this whatsoever

I'm not a gun enthusiast though I do own one, but I find myself constantly arguing for gun rights due to the volume of idiocy with most proposed gun control legislation.

 

[Meadmaker]

I wonder what they would think of a $500 flat tax?

The US has a weird legal system that requires us to pass a law and then wait a few year to find out whether that law is valid, and when we do, it's a bit of a mystery, and depends significantly on when certain old people retire or die. In other words, it's hard to predict the Supreme Court.

However, I would think that a $500 tax on a pistol would be seen as prohibitively high, and may very well be overturned on constitutional grounds, unless Thomas dies before Ginsburg.

 

[Meadmaker]

If you're thinking of modular guns like the AR-15, they are just rifles and nothing more. Compared to what we had in the 1790's, they are even less advanced compared to the weapons we have now.

Let me try to be more clear in my discussion of the constitutionality of the tax. There is no constitutional right to own an assault rifle, therefore a tax on those weapons could not be challenged on constitutional grounds. On the other hand, a tax on every single gun may very well be considered overly broad, because a sufficiently high tax would probably be seen as deliberately restricting a constitutional right.

 

[Ranb]

....However, I would think that a $500 tax on a pistol would be seen as prohibitively high, and may very well be overturned on constitutional grounds, unless Thomas dies before Ginsburg.

The proposed $500 tax (it is currently only $200) is only for making an NFA firearm like a silencer, SBR or machine gun. They're just wanting to raise it; it's been $200 since 1934.

Let me try to be more clear in my discussion of the constitutionality of the tax. There is no constitutional right to own an assault rifle, therefore a tax on those weapons could not be challenged on constitutional grounds. On the other hand, a tax on every single gun may very well be considered overly broad, because a sufficiently high tax would probably be seen as deliberately restricting a constitutional right.

I don't see why the supreme court or any other court would differentiate between a semi-auto rifle or a single shot shotgun when it comes to 2nd amendment rights. A gun is a gun. Either you have the right to own one or not.

This is different than putting restrictions on certain kinds of guns, that has been going on for a couple of centuries.

 

[Meadmaker]

I don't see why the supreme court or any other court would differentiate between a semi-auto rifle or a single shot shotgun when it comes to 2nd amendment rights. A gun is a gun. Either you have the right to own one or not.

The constitution doesn't mention guns, it only mentions arms.

Surely you wouldn't say "Arms are arms. Either you have the right to own arms, or you do not." I think you would find yourself in very small company if you tried to insist that the constitution granted American citizens the right to own any and all weapons they choose.

And if they do not have the right to own any weapon that they choose, why would they have the right to own any sort of gun that they choose?