Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As I pointed out in the OP, the original 1934 National Firearms Act was found unconstitutional in Federal court, precisely because the taxes it impose WERE found to affect the right to keep and bear arms.
The only reason the Supreme Court didn't back them up, was because nobody showed up for the defense at the trial. So the Supremes rubber-stamped the fibs of the anti-gun prosecution into an Opinion and passed them.
It was a windfall like the gun-grabbers had never seen, before or since. They've been milking it for all they're worth, pretending that what they are doing is legal.
Only a portion of the NFA was found unconstitutional in regards to gun registration, it was later modified and had that removed. Which court case are you referring to that found taxation of guns and ammo to be unconstitutional?
A fee to be a registered gun owner would affect the right to keep and bear arms, but a tax on the actual product does not affect the right. There is a difference between the two.
Back tracking what? I haven't changed my point on this, taxing ammo and guns does not affect the right to bear arms because it is a tax on a sold product and is no different than paying sales tax on guns and ammo.
Only a portion of the NFA was found unconstitutional in regards to gun registration, it was later modified and had that removed. Which court case are you referring to that found taxation of guns and ammo to be unconstitutional?
A fee to be a registered gun owner would affect the right to keep and bear arms, but a tax on the actual product does not affect the right. There is a difference between the two.
You keep saying this, but if that extra tax puts it out of the price range for someone....
Back tracking what? I haven't changed my point on this, taxing ammo and guns does not affect the right to bear arms because it is a tax on a sold product and is no different than paying sales tax on guns and ammo.
This entire thread is about an extra tax on guns and ammo, not the current sales tax....there is a difference....
Who said the 2nd Amendment was going anywhere? Regardless of what the tax is on guns and ammo, people are gonna still buy them.
Also, you do realize this bill won't even make it out of committee? Everything we are talking about here is purely hypothetical.
Sure I know all that. but I know how much you like pipe dreams. It was fun putting you in your place, and getting you to admit nothing was going to happen.
No, a tax added to a tax because you don't guns or ammo is bad...no double speak, just your inability to not understand...
So why isn't a sales tax an infringement on the right to bear arms?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
