Remove the tax on Firearms/Ammo?

[Cubo de Sangre]

Ok, no worries, that makes sense. I don't post in the wr a lot because people take things so seriously (not referring to you). I forgot these gun threads are particularly salty sometimes. It gets exhausting and I am too lazy to research so I can back up every damn word I say, heh.

We're all here to have fun in one way or another. Cheers.

 

[oldshadow]

Well there it is. You've alluded to things outside the realm of what the 1st was intended to protect and used them as a reason to infringe on another liberty that was intended to be protected.

lol. What scale has nukes on one end and handguns on the other?

Seems kind of silly to have taxed something out of people's hands for almost a century, flat out prohibited new purchases for three decades, then justify the whole thing by saying the items aren't commonly owned by the citizenry. All while ignoring they are standard issue for fighting forces and the 2nd's clear intention of enabling the citizens as a fighting force.

Not sure who is arguing your "originalism". The fact is the document can and has been changed many times. Are you trying to justify bypassing that in favor of contorting logic and language in order to get what you want by claiming some people believe the Constitution shouldn't be changed?

As for the part in green, let's do that and apply that same thinking elsewhere. So long as you can be a Jew or Christian or Hindu then there's no problem outlawing Islam? After all, religion is still available to you. Or how about just in public? Maybe create some zoning laws to get rid of Mosques? Let's limit the military to what the citizens can own and see if they complain about their options.




So if a church preaches about the evils of abortion or being pro-anti-2nd Amendment rights that's a violation of some sort? Or they just can't donate to political campaigns?

Not exactly but you are restricted.


https://www.irs.gov/uac/Tax-Exempt-Organizations-and-Political-Activities

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Not exactly but you are restricted.


https://www.irs.gov/uac/Tax-Exempt-Organizations-and-Political-Activities

Thanks. I guess that's no representation without taxation.

 

[Fawlty]

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.

I have a better version of this involving agriculture rather than my fridge, but this doesn't prevent regulation according to the will of the people through their representatives. I'm sure you must understand our inalienable rights are very much subject to regulation. Perhaps a gun tax does need to be abolished though. It seems a reasonable argument.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I have a better version of this involving agriculture rather than my fridge, but this doesn't prevent regulation according to the will of the people through their representatives. I'm sure you must understand our inalienable rights are very much subject to regulation.

Maybe you could make some direct comparisons then. Just saying that regulation exists in other areas, therefore any regulation here is acceptable doesn't make any sense. For example, tell me which words you're not allowed to speak in your home.

 

[Cooz]

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?

Pay your taxes deadbeat. (I say deadbeat in jest. But please do pay your taxes).

 

[sickc0d3r]

Negative.

"Shall not be infringed" =/= Shall be provided.

You can make or buy any arms you want under the constitution. This includes tanks, helicopters, etc. The government has no rightful place at all in the exchange or restriction of arms.

The point is that your right to bear arms doesn't include the right to not pay for things. If your position is that firearms should be completely unregulated then your argument doesn't hold up to even the most casual scrutiny. The gov't is not compelled by the constitution to stay out of your business when it comes to how you use your guns. The right to keep and bear arms doesn't give you the right to shoot people or animals randomly, for example.
Regulations cost money, money comes from taxes, you pay your taxes, your rights remain intact.

 

[Byron Carter]

The point is that your right to bear arms doesn't include the right to not pay for things. If your position is that firearms should be completely unregulated then your argument doesn't hold up to even the most casual scrutiny. The gov't is not compelled by the constitution to stay out of your business when it comes to how you use your guns. The right to keep and bear arms doesn't give you the right to shoot people or animals randomly, for example.
Regulations cost money, money comes from taxes, you pay your taxes, your rights remain intact.

Our rights remain intact through willpower and strength. Not by paying for them.

Are you seriously suggesting we pay to keep our rights? Laughable.

 

[Quipling]

All this stuff, cool in my books. I started out as a recreational shooter and developed my interest in hunting fairly recently. The amount seems reasonable, around 10% or 11% and funds a pretty good cause, IMO.

I won't support a bullshit, cost-prohibitive, "fear tax" though.

There's actually a constitutional test on whether something is a tax or a restriction in the form of a tax. I haven't had a case with it in some time, though, so I don't recall the exact nature of the test.

 

[Fawlty]

Maybe you could make some direct comparisons then. Just saying that regulation exists in other areas, therefore any regulation here is acceptable doesn't make any sense. For example, tell me which words you're not allowed to speak in your home.

There's no such thing as a word we're not allowed to speak at home (thankfully), but interestingly there are arms that 99.Many9s% believe we shouldn't be allowed to have in our homes. We limit speech against children in our homes, as some of it is abuse. These determinations are made through democracy, and they all infringe on our rights. "Shall not" really means "Will not without good and popular reason, or until it compromises the rights of others" when we're talking about infringement. That's our law and our history through and through. I reject your suggestion that I've said that any regulation is acceptable because we regulate another thing. I'm saying the opposite of that arbitrary nonsense- I'm saying that we examine each of our rights and set reasonable limits on them.

Gun taxes are an interesting debate and I don't think either side is automatically right. It may be the case that we have both have a duty to regulate arms, but no right to additionally tax them. I don't have a stance on it. But I do have a stance on the rainbow-eyed constitutional literalism that forgets that the entire foundation of our social contract was giving up our rights to the community in the first place.

 

[sickc0d3r]

Our rights remain intact through willpower and strength. Not by paying for them.

Are you seriously suggesting we pay to keep our rights? Laughable.

The hell are you talking about? I said your rights are intact despite having to pay taxes for thing related to those rights.

 

[Byron Carter]

The hell are you talking about? I said your rights are intact despite having to pay taxes for thing related to those rights.

You wrote,

"You pay your taxes, your rights remain intact."


So, conversely, you're implying that if we don't pay our taxes --- they won't remain intact.


And for that, you're wrong. And laughable.

 

[sickc0d3r]

You wrote,

"You pay your taxes, your rights remain intact."


So, conversely, you're implying that if we don't pay our taxes --- they won't remain intact.


And for that, you're wrong. And laughable.

I guess you could take it that way if you skip over everything else I said.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

There's no such thing as a word we're not allowed to speak at home (thankfully),

Exactly. So hopefully now you see the false equivalence fallacy here. You've tried to use the existence of laws (that you believe) limit free speech as justification for restrictions on gun ownership without presenting any parallel reasoning to support any particular laws. Show me me where you've compared anything specifically or I'll have to reject your rejection. Let me start. Free speech does not include employing falsehoods to separate people from their money or property. The right to keep and bear arms does not include employing firearms to separate people from their money or property. Free speech includes using words of my choice to express my thoughts and beliefs. The right to keep and bear arms includes using weapons of my choice to defend myself, friends, family, and community.

You probably shouldn't be bringing up the social contract because in this case it's enshrined in the Constitution and you seem to be on the wrong side of it. Democracy has not revoked the acknowledgment of this fundamental right.

If anything the Constitution allows for taxation of commerce and disallows for the government deciding which arms can be possessed.

 

[Fawlty]

Exactly. So hopefully now you see the false equivalence fallacy here. You've tried to use the existence of laws (that you believe) limit free speech as justification for restrictions on gun ownership without presenting any parallel reasoning to support any particular laws. Show me me where you've compared anything specifically or I'll have to reject your rejection. Let me start. Free speech does not include employing falsehoods to separate people from their money or property. The right to keep and bear arms does not include employing firearms to separate people from their money or property. Free speech includes using words of my choice to express my thoughts and beliefs. The right to keep and bear arms includes using weapons of my choice to defend myself, friends, family, and community.

You probably shouldn't be bringing up the social contract because in this case it's enshrined in the Constitution and you seem to be on the wrong side of it. Democracy has not revoked the acknowledgment of this fundamental right.

If anything the Constitution allows for taxation of commerce and disallows for the government deciding which arms can be possessed.

I don't know if any intelligent person has ever gotten me so wrong as you have here.

I'm not making a false equivalency. In fact I tried to preempt that with my very first point. We don't have words we cannot say at home, yet we have arms we're not allowed to bear at home. If anything is a false equivalency, it would be comparing in absolute terms the rights of free speech and bearing arms. Clearly very different standards applied to them (though both basic rights are preserved in at least some respect, such as the recent incorporation of the 2nd). The question of taxing arms is more interesting than just commerce, depending on who you ask. Because it's an enumerated right, one might argue a gun tax is essentially like a speech tax. It's somewhat compelling, if not convincing.

In no way do I support any specific regulatory measure on the basis that other things have been regulated. There is a huge difference between recognizing that we can and do frequently infringe upon our rights in general, and excusing a given infringement simply because it has happened before. There's an important step missing there- the step where you have to justify the infringement.

Any deviation from the constitution is activist, unconstitutional, infringing. We have an unspoken understanding in America that it we don't take it literally, but try to keep it close. Sometimes we leap back onto the constitution and stand on literalism, when we feel things have gotten out of hand. But it's all up for debate.

 

[VulcanNervPinch]

You know, we've already had a thread where you yell "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And then it was pointed out to you the absurd and dangerous results that would occur if "shall not be infringed" was literally taken to mean "no law/regulation, at any time, for any reason, can hinder or prevent gun ownership".

And here you are again, firing up the same ridiculous interpretation of the phrase.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

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:



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.

I find that a dubious at best - the most leathal weapon at the time of the writing of the Constitution would have been a cannon - and many, if not most were privately owned.

The first concealed carry laws were in the 1800's - Georgia passed a ban on pistols in the 1830's and it was declared unconstitutional. True restrictions on guns didn't formally start until the NFA in the 1930's

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846) was a Georgia state supreme court ruling that a state law ban on handguns was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. This was the first gun control measure to be overturned on Second Amendment grounds.[1]

Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta​

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I don't know if any intelligent person has ever gotten me so wrong as you have here.

I'm not making a false equivalency. In fact I tried to preempt that with my very first point. We don't have words we cannot say at home, yet we have arms we're not allowed to bear at home. If anything is a false equivalency, it would be comparing in absolute terms the rights of free speech and bearing arms.

That's what you did when you pontificated about how rights in general are not absolute and that because some laws are seen as restrictions on rights other than self-defense that means restrictions on the 2nd Amendment are reasonable. Or what does this stuff mean? It doesn't sound like you're talking about existing firearms laws. Sounds like you're comparing, but only to the shallowest of level.

I have a better version of this involving agriculture rather than my fridge, but this doesn't prevent regulation according to the will of the people through their representatives. I'm sure you must understand our inalienable rights are very much subject to regulation.

There's no such thing as a word we're not allowed to speak at home (thankfully), but interestingly there are arms that 99.Many9s% believe we shouldn't be allowed to have in our homes. We limit speech against children in our homes, as some of it is abuse.

I guess I'm not that intelligent. Are you one of those who fully supports the 2nd but supports "common sense" restrictions? I will concede I'm interpreting your messages as mixed, presumably due to not picking up on your nuances.

Any deviation from the constitution is activist, unconstitutional, infringing. We have an unspoken understanding in America that it we don't take it literally, but try to keep it close. Sometimes we leap back onto the constitution and stand on literalism, when we feel things have gotten out of hand. But it's all up for debate.

I disagree about this unspoken understanding but I'll ask as directly as I can, what's as clear a violation of the Bill of Rights as federal laws deciding which arms can be owned by people never convicted of a crime or adjudicated mentally defective?

 

[sloppypie]

Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846) was a Georgia state supreme court ruling that a state law ban on handguns was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. This was the first gun control measure to be overturned on Second Amendment grounds.[1]

Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta​

this is the opinion of a state supreme court - and one that is entirely incorrect in its analysis of federal law, and has zero jurisdictional authority outside their own state.

the federal supreme court, the ultimate authority on the US constitution, specifically said the 2nd amendment (and the bill of rights prior to incorporation) did not apply to the states.

it's actually based on a very famous case that every person learns in law school:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore

i'm sorry that you have a partisan love of the 2nd amendment, but what i wrote is the actual context of the framework of the 2nd amendment and the bill of rights. i applaud you for attempting to do some legal analysis, but you are a bit out of your element on this one.