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.
This is very similar to the National Firearms Act of 1934, which put a tax of $200 on each and every transfer of a short-barrelled shotgun, machine gun, and (oddly) any silencer. That was at a time when $200 was more than a month's pay for most people, and many of the items taxed cost less than 1/10 of that amount to purchase.
A lawsuit was brought, and the Federal District Court immediately ruled that the 1934 NFA was an unconstitutional violation of the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. The judge pointed out that the NFA was clearly an act meant to restrict firearms, not to collect revenue, since very few people would pay a $200 tax to transfer an old $5 shotgun such as the one owned by the defendant.
The case was appealed to the Supreme Court. When the trial date came, no one from the Defense showed up, and the Court rubber-stamped a number of false statements from the government Prosecution team, into an Opinion Of The Court. The Opinion says that, since no one refuted what the Prosecution said, the Court was ruling in their favor. The case was US v. Miller in 1939, 307 US 174.
Dem bill would trigger huge new taxes on guns, ammo
By Perry Chiaramonte
Published August 26, 2013
FoxNews.com
A pair of Democratic lawmakers are proposing steep new taxes on handguns and ammunition, and tying the revenues to programs aimed at preventing gun violence.
Called the “Gun Violence Prevention and Safe Communities Act," the bill sponsored by William Pascrell, D-N.J., and Danny Davis, D-Ill., would nearly double the current 11 percent tax on handguns, while raising the levy on bullets and cartridges from 11 percent to 50 percent.
“What the anti-gun interests can’t ban, they want to tax it out of existence,” Alan Gottlieb, chairman for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, told FoxNews.com. “It’s nothing more than confiscatory taxation.
The bill would also increase the transfer tax on all weapons (except antique guns) covered under the National Firearms Act (which excludes most common guns) from $200 to $500 and index to inflation and increase the transfer tax for any other weapon from $5 to $100.
The bill would exempt all federal, state and local agencies, including police departments, from paying the tax.
The answer is to tax Congresspeople $500 per word spoken in public.
The answer is to tax Congresspeople $500 per word spoken in public.
They'll suddenly get righteous about rights.
Yep. It should also be mandatory that every law has to be renewed by congress every 10 years and for every new law that is proposed, one current law needs to be taken off of the book.
You have yet to prove to me why a tax on guns and ammo is unconstitutional and a sales tax on guns and ammo is constitutional. Fun fact, they are both constitutional because they are both sale taxes.
You lost this argument long ago and you have lost others to me before, though I am sure you think you win every argument you are in.
It's unconstitutional because it infringes on the right to bear arms. If you have to pay for something, then it isn't a right. You can tax the sale of a gun, because that is commerce. You cannot tax merely having a gun, because that is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment and cannot be infringed. That has already been said and is clear to any rational mind. The fact that you do not accept that as proof is your problem, it is not the fault of the people you are arguing with.
It's unconstitutional because it infringes on the right to bear arms. If you have to pay for something, then it isn't a right. You can tax the sale of a gun, because that is commerce. You cannot tax merely having a gun, because that is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment and cannot be infringed. That has already been said and is clear to any rational mind. The fact that you do not accept that as proof is your problem, it is not the fault of the people you are arguing with.
In defense of the urbanlover, he did not say tax the ownership of guns, but rather tax their transaction, buy and sell.
That's not the issue. The issue is while trying to restrict them, and not succeeding, Libs trying to incease their tax by four (4) times. The libs would achieve their nirvana: kill two birds with one stone: prevent gun sales, drive gun mfr out of business, and collect fat taxes in the meantime, which will be spend for more green companies and social programs, for the "middle class."
If taxes were increased across the board, including food, clothing, sneakers, rimz, electricity to 50% sales tax, taxing guns at the same rate wouldn't be infringement.
Yep. It should also be mandatory that every law has to be renewed by congress every 10 years and for every new law that is proposed, one current law needs to be taken off of the book.
Not taken from the books, but dropped from the books for the 10 years part.
At this point with so much frivolous "Feel Good' laws which can't be enforced, and assorted other laws like illegal immigration the govt refuses to enforce, and more laws that just don't get enforced because no one feels like it, even though their so called 'earnings' (tax based welfare) come from being an LEO, I don't see much point in a legal system anyway.
The friggin dolt in the WH doesn't know CONS Law as he claims He has no idea the job of Pres doesn't get to declare war with out PASSING it in Congress.
These days i worry less and less about law, and more and more about keeping what's mine safe.
Don't much care what a man looks like that makes threat to me, mine, or my freedom. Crooks and Cops look the same to me.
We are either a nation of Laws or we are a nation of Dog eats Dog. It can't be both ways.
It's come to be time to not bother addressing the proggy libs. They have no power, and there is no use debating and explaining. They are products of a failed PC system and are never going to learn How To Reason.
Proggy Libs are NOT anything close to Liberals. There is nothing progressive about them. There is nothing liberal about them.
A Liberal is based off Liberty and there is nothing about Liberty they resemble either.
It's unconstitutional because it infringes on the right to bear arms. If you have to pay for something, then it isn't a right. You can tax the sale of a gun, because that is commerce. You cannot tax merely having a gun, because that is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment and cannot be infringed. That has already been said and is clear to any rational mind. The fact that you do not accept that as proof is your problem, it is not the fault of the people you are arguing with.
An added tax on guns and ammo would be an added sales tax. Now if you taxed people for just owning guns, that would be unconstitutional.
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.
