Remove the tax on Firearms/Ammo?

[Byron Carter]

The second amendment clearly states,

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

This is very explicit wording.

Now, with the first amendment, we know the government is not supposed to infringe or participate at all in religion. In fact, for this reason, Churches and other religious institutions are TAX EXEMPT. This is because taxes are seen as an infringement upon the freedom of religion.

Following that same logic, doesn't it make sense that taxes on Firearms and Ammunition should be considered infringement as well?


I say that all taxes on Firearms and Ammunition should cease immediately. Do you agree?

 

[ironwolf]

Sure I agree but it won't happen.

 

[sloppypie]

well one, the second amendment was centered on a restriction of the federal government in it's original application. which is why the preceding text is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." the purpose of it being for states to protect themselves individually, either from the federal government itself or other foreign threats where the federal government would just say f it, you are on your own.

in fact, when the other bill of rights were incorporated in the 1930s, the second amendment was explicitly left out. it was only in the very recent gun cases penned by our conservative justices was the second amendment found to have rights in it that, quite frankly, were never there before.

from Heller v. DC and the exact words in the opinion from Scalia:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g.,Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490;Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

this was right at the beginning of section III.

you also have a lot of long term state regulations to compete with, b/c again the realm of gun regulations has been a states issue for 99% of our current history. and they have their own common law rules and interpretations for their own state constitutions and state laws. some may infringe (like an outright ban on handguns) while others are permissible (background checks or total prohibition for certain people like criminals).

your analogy to the taxation of churches, the infringement on religions expression is actually a rather tiny reason we do this. the primary reason is b/c churches are seen as a betterment to society - it's also why we tax exempt entities like non-profits. we also don't want the government being entangled in churches themselves and blurring the lines of the separation of church and state.

guns, on the other hand, and the constitutional reasons behind them, have a much murkier and bizarre implementation. which i hope explains why ordinary people interpret a very simplistic definition of the word "infringement" (which is actually not as rigid as it's made out to be) and why courts are wrestling with it to such degree.

so to answer your question no, i don't agree. but it also depends on the degree of the tax - if it's such that it puts an undue financial burden on citizens, then that's clearly an infringement.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Churches should be taxed and the $200 NFA tax stamp abolished. The rest I can go either way on, provided the taxation amount is standard for all goods sold..

 

[djacobox372]

The second amendment clearly states,

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

This is very explicit wording.

Now, with the first amendment, we know the government is not supposed to infringe or participate at all in religion. In fact, for this reason, Churches and other religious institutions are TAX EXEMPT. This is because taxes are seen as an infringement upon the freedom of religion.
Following that same logic, doesn't it make sense that taxes on Firearms and Ammunition should be considered infringement as well?

I say that all taxes on Firearms and Ammunition should cease immediately. Do you agree?

Why did you cut out the first half of the sentence?

Let's be honest about what the 2nd amendment says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[WorldofWarcraft]

Why did you cut out the first half of the sentence?

Let's be honest about what the 2nd amendment says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

the word regulated meant differently back then. It meant more like well supplied

 

[Byron Carter]

Why did you cut out the first half of the sentence?

Let's be honest about what the 2nd amendment says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Because anyone who actually understands the English language knows that the first part is not relevant to the topic at hand.



Food in my refrigerator, being necessary to my health, my right to go to the grocery store, shall not be infringed.

The first portion is merely a preamble to the unequivocal second portion, which is the obvious substance of the amendment. With or without the first portion, the point stands.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Let's be honest about what the 2nd amendment says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Please do.

 

[sloppypie]

Because anyone who actually understands the English language knows that the first part is not relevant to the topic at hand.



Food in my refrigerator, being necessary to my health, my right to go to the grocery store, shall not be infringed.

The first portion is merely a preamble to the unequivocal second portion, which is the obvious substance of the amendment. With or without the first portion, the point stands.

this is so horrible inaccurate that i'm actually left kinda speechless. bravo, sir.

 

[asharak]

the word regulated meant differently back then. It meant more like well supplied

The war with the regulators in the carolinas makes me think not

 

[jlagman]

But a lot of firearms excise taxes go into State fish and wildlife agencies, do they not? I don't really have a problem paying it, if it goes into a good cause like that.

 

[Lord Coke]

Why did you cut out the first half of the sentence?

Let's be honest about what the 2nd amendment says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Militia was synonymous with the People at the time of the Founding. They mean a people governed by laws and otherwise existed within the framework of a republican democracy.

 

[RerouteToRemain]

I don't have a problem with guns and ammo being taxed (I almost always buy online anyway). If the percentage gets out of control compared to other things I would object.

NFA tax stamps on the other hand are garbage.

 

[RerouteToRemain]

Militia was synonymous with the People at the time of the Founding. They mean a people governed by laws and otherwise existed within the framework of a republican democracy.

Don't bother. He continues to be dishonest about it even though it has been spelled out numerous times and even given statements and quotes from founding fathers on what a militia is and that the people (individual citizens) have the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[oldshadow]

Well regulated means trained and militia is not a standing paid military, all citizens.

I don't know about the tax but I would like my free training with no obligation to sign up for any military.

 

[Higus]

I'd be worried about broadening the definition of "infringement". Technically, refusing to sell based on a violent criminal history would be considered an infringement. So would be not allowing a firearm on private property.

 

[kpt018]

Horrible logic. Churches are tax exempt because they qualify for non-profit status. The gun sales industry is very much for profit. Note, the NRA and other organizations (like gun safety) are non-profit and do not pay tax.

 

[Byron Carter]

I'd be worried about broadening the definition of "infringement". Technically, refusing to sell based on a violent criminal history would be considered an infringement. So would be not allowing a firearm on private property.

Both absolutely are infringements, and clear violations of the 2nd Amendment.

The "Private Property" one is a little ambiguous because you have a right to deny anyone entrance to your home/property, but you should not be able to arbitrarily restrict firearms from parks/restaurants during normal business hours, where a normal person could walk freely.

Free people, even those who have been convicted of a felony, still have their god-given right to self-defense. The 2nd Amendment should not only apply to people who have never gone to jail.

 

[Higus]

Also, the text of the first amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
There's nothing about taxing (or not taxing) religious institutions. It's more along the lines that congress shall not make laws about how religions should be practiced (I'm glossing over this a lot). Tax policies, such as tax deductions for religious donations, tend to be based more on political grounds than constitutional grounds.

Both absolutely are infringements, and clear violations of the 2nd Amendment.

The "Private Property" one is a little ambiguous because you have a right to deny anyone entrance to your home/property, but you should not be able to arbitrarily restrict firearms from parks/restaurants, where a normal person could walk freely.

Free people, even those who have been convicted of a felony, still have their god-given right to self-defense. The 2nd Amendment should not only apply to people who have never gone to jail.

There are limits to free speech just as there are limits to firearms. That doesn't make the limits unconstitutional, it just sets common sense boundaries so the laws can be actually be enforced.

 

[Byron Carter]

Also, the text of the first amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
There's nothing about taxing (or not taxing) religious institutions. It's more along the lines that congress shall not make laws about how religions should be practiced (I'm glossing over this a lot). Tax policies, such as tax deductions for religious donations, tend to be based more on political grounds than constitutional grounds.



There are limits to free speech just as there are limits to firearms. That doesn't make the limits unconstitutional, it just sets common sense boundaries so the laws can be actually be enforced.

"Shall not be infringed"

It really can't be any more clear.

I'm sorry you have been brainwashed to not value your rights.