The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Commodore]

What about it is unconstitutional? All of the case evidence I can find supports the view that Congress has the power to levy taxes and basically spend the money on what it wants largely without judicial review.

The government cannot charge a fee for the exercising of a Constitutionally guaranteed right. This was determined when poll taxes were declared unconstitutional in 1966 in the Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections case.

If a poll tax cannot be a requirement to exercise your right to vote, then it only stands to reason that the government cannot make a sales tax or any other type of tax a requirement for the exercising of 2nd Amendment rights. And the exercising of that right, in my opinion, includes both the purchase and manufacturing of anything firearm related. And yes, that means I am arguing that firearm/ammunition manufacturers and dealers should be completely tax exempt. I've also argued in the past that gun purchases should be subsidized by the government for those who cannot afford to purchase one on their own. Lack of income should not prevent someone from exercising their rights.

 

[amadeus]

People need to stop panic buying all the damn ammo.

This post (snippeted) started a small discussion in the Random Rants thread.

The government cannot charge a fee for the exercising of a Constitutionally guaranteed right. This was determined when poll taxes were declared unconstitutional in 1966 in the Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections case.

If a poll tax cannot be a requirement to exercise your right to vote, then it only stands to reason that the government cannot make a sales tax or any other type of tax a requirement for the exercising of 2nd Amendment rights. And the exercising of that right, in my opinion, includes both the purchase and manufacturing of anything firearm related. And yes, that means I am arguing that firearm/ammunition manufacturers and dealers should be completely tax exempt. I've also argued in the past that gun purchases should be subsidized by the government for those who cannot afford to purchase one on their own. Lack of income should not prevent someone from exercising their rights.

I would argue that the powers of Congress to levy taxes from United States v. Butler in 1936 and more recently, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012, the one that upheld Obamacare individual mandates) trump Harper on the question of taxing firearms on a constitutional basis.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Lack of income should not prevent someone from exercising their rights.

You know, I agree with you. I've always thought about it in terms of voting more particularly...i.e. election days should be national holidays, there should be subsidized or free mass transit to polling places, and mail-in ballots should be more widely available.

But I've never thought about it in terms of the 2nd Amendment. I honestly don't know how I feel about that, but recognize that I need to be consistent. You've given me something to think about.

 

[Commodore]

This post (snippeted) started a small discussion in the Random Rants thread.


I would argue that the powers of Congress to levy taxes from United States v. Butler in 1936 and more recently, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012, the one that upheld Obamacare individual mandates) trump Harper on the question of taxing firearms on a constitutional basis.

The problem with applying either of those cases to taxes on firearms is that neither of them deal with taxing something that is a guaranteed Constitutional right. Harper does deal directly with that question and the ruling there was that applying taxes to rights is a big no-no.

 

[Zardnaar]

Why not hand out guns to school kids? Nothing can go wrong rights.

How about with happy meals?

 

[Cutlass]

Like, guns are taxed. I think every state has a sales tax, and guns are not exempt from it.

 

[Commodore]

Like, guns are taxed. I think every state has a sales tax, and guns are not exempt from it.

Yes, we all know that. The discussion though is focused on whether or not it is Constitutional to tax them since legal precedent in the US says the government can't tax Constitutional rights.

While we are on this discussion, I would also say states that charge for any kind of firearm license are also acting in an unconstitutional manner. The government isn't allowed to charge me to register to vote, so they shouldn't be allowed to make me pay a fee for my concealed carry permit either.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Legit just don't care. There's a nominal case to be made, however from a practical standpoint suggesting that sales taxes are limiting gun purchases borders on the absurd...from the wrong side of the border. To actually apply your argument would involve actually issuing guns free of charge at state expense.

 

[Commodore]

To actually apply your argument would involve actually issuing guns free of charge at state expense.

Well why not? Like it or not, it is a fundamental right of all Americans so it doesn't seem fair that one's ability to exercise that right be limited by their financial status. And if that were to happen, the government wouldn't be allowed to place limits on what type of gun one could request. That means if I want a $10,000 Barrett .50 cal rifle, then Uncle Sam is getting me a $10,000 Barrett .50 cal rifle.

The only acceptable limit I would see on this would be the government could limit you to one free firearm per member of your household. Anything after that you would have to purchase on your own. There could also be a yearly ammo allowance that operates on the same principle. You get a certain amount for free from the government and any extra is on you to purchase.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well why not? Like it or not, it is a fundamental right of all Americans so it doesn't seem fair that one's ability to exercise that right be limited by their financial status. And if that were to happen, the government wouldn't be allowed to place limits on what type of gun one could request. That means if I want a $10,000 Barrett .50 cal rifle, then Uncle Sam is getting me a $10,000 Barrett .50 cal rifle.

The only acceptable limit I would see on this would be the government could limit you to one free firearm per member of your household. Anything after that you would have to purchase on your own. There could also be a yearly ammo allowance that operates on the same principle. You get a certain amount for free from the government and any extra is on you to purchase.

Or we could have a well organized militia by all just picking up our weapons at an armory for training and exercises...supplied weapons...and not have every gun nut on the horizon coming at us armed to the teeth. It would take a while to round up all the loose cannons already circulating, but in the long run I think it would be beneficial.

 

[Cutlass]

Yes, we all know that. The discussion though is focused on whether or not it is Constitutional to tax them since legal precedent in the US says the government can't tax Constitutional rights.

While we are on this discussion, I would also say states that charge for any kind of firearm license are also acting in an unconstitutional manner. The government isn't allowed to charge me to register to vote, so they shouldn't be allowed to make me pay a fee for my concealed carry permit either.

They aren't taxing a constitutional right. They're taxing a physical object.

 

[Commodore]

Or we could have a well organized militia by all just picking up our weapons at an armory for training and exercises...supplied weapons...and not have every gun nut on the horizon coming at us armed to the teeth. It would take a while to round up all the loose cannons already circulating, but in the long run I think it would be beneficial.

That would require overturning the Supreme Court ruling in Presser v Illinois that established the right to bear arms as an individual right, not a militia right.

That plan also violates the 2nd Amendment directly because it clearly says the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Keep being the key word there. You can't really say the people are keeping their arms if the government has them locked away in an armory that can only be accessed when the government says so.

They aren't taxing a constitutional right. They're taxing a physical object.

Which is essential to the exercising of the right. That's like justifying a poll tax by saying "they aren't taxing your right to vote, just the voter registration". Seeing as voter registration is required to exercise your right to vote, taxing it is just like taxing the right itself. The same argument should apply to guns (or really any weapon for that matter) if our government was at all interested in being consistent.

 

[amadeus]

They aren't taxing a constitutional right. They're taxing a physical object.

It's also a tax in a "specified percent of the price for which so sold."

If you are making your own firearms or ammunition for noncommercial use, you wouldn't pay a tax. Rights fully exercised, no taxes paid.

 

[Commodore]

If you are making your own firearms or ammunition for personal use, you wouldn't pay a tax. Rights fully exercised, no taxes paid

But the federal government and some state governments make you purchase a license from them to be able to legally manufacture your own firearms. Making guns without that license is a felony offense that will not only see you do prison time, but will permanently strip you of your 2nd Amendment rights.

That license either needs to be issued free of charge or it needs to go away entirely.

And the problem is also not just sales tax, but all taxes levied on firearm manufacturers and dealers, including income and property taxes. Those taxes can, and do, sometimes limit people's access to firearms. For example if the only gun shop in town doesn't pay it's property taxes for whatever reason and is forced to shut down because if it, then those taxes just denied an entire town the ability to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. Basically, I'm going to use the justification for not taxing churches to justify not taxing gun manufacturers and dealers. If taxing churches is a violation of the 1st Amendment then taxing gun shops and gun factories is a violation of the 2nd Amendment. If that means those businesses have to start operating as non-profits to make that argument fit, then so be it. Just because an organization is non-profit doesn't mean you can't get rich from it (as the church has proven) so I don't think turning their businesses into non-profits will scare too many manufacturers and dealers away. Dealers might even welcome it since they already operate at very narrow profit margins anyway so not much would change for them except not having to pay taxes.

 

[Arwon]

Poll taxes were ruled unconstitutional based on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, not because "you can't charge a fee on exercising a constitutional right".

If it were the latter, you'd have to, like, exempt pens and paper too.

 

[Commodore]

If it were the latter, you'd have to, like, exempt pens and paper too

Nope, because those aren't essential to exercising your right to vote.

Poll taxes were ruled unconstitutional based on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, not because "you can't charge a fee on exercising a constitutional right

Doesn't change the fact that any argument used to claim something like poll taxes or taxing the church should also apply to all Constitutional rights.

I mean another Constitutional right is the right to legal representation. If you can't afford to hire such representation, the government provides it to you free of charge. So if I also have the right to own guns, why shouldn't the government also be obligated to provide me one (of my choosing, just to head off any "hurr durr, then they can give you a musket, hurr durr" remarks) free of charge?

 

[Bamspeedy]

People who get free lawyers dont get the most expensive/best lawyer, they often get the worst. You choosing any gun you want is absurd.

 

[Commodore]

People who get free lawyers dont get the most expensive/best lawyer, they often get the worst. You choosing any gun you want is absurd.

Well that goes back to my point in the Rants thread about the government not being able to attract talent like the private sector can. Maybe public defenders would be better if the government would pay them what they could make at some big law firm.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think the logic is sound, and that the 2A needs amending.

But I think that the 2A also gives me the right to a bomb vest and potentially makes it illegal to interfere with Iran's nuclear weapons program.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Well that goes back to my point in the Rants thread about the government not being able to attract talent like the private sector can. Maybe public defenders would be better if the government would pay them what they could make at some big law firm.

Government doesnt pay as well, because you know voters dont like to pay taxes to pay them more.....