Remove the tax on Firearms/Ammo?

[Cubo de Sangre]

Bro I'm gonna apologize for breaking this up but it's not because I want to get all pedantic. It's just that you said a mouthful.

Right, I am making a rather shallow point, that we accept restrictions on our rights. I wouldn't defend a specific restriction just because it's okay in general to restrict rights. But, the fact that we do already restrict our enumerated, "shall not" rights, does justify the act/concept/discussion of further restrictions.

Agreed to the extent that when legal rights conflict there needs to be a weighing of primacy and impact. And there I'd caution against confusing the philosophical with the legal (especially as a way to obfuscate or subvert clear evidence to favor one's position).

There isn't a contradiction there, because I'm not a believer in absolute rights, and few people actually are. Basically I have the same feelings as most Americans about rights, but I'm more willing to admit that it's all really up for debate (I could also go off on Locke and how he uses some dubious philosophical reasoning to get us out of nature and into our social contract in the first place, but that's another topic).

Most agree that criminals lose their rights. Disagreement stems from things considered rights (like self-defense) being removed from those committing no societal infraction. Regardless, taking away 11 round clips from firearms because 10 is enough, in the scheme of militia-type arms, is clearly an infringement. It's rather arbitrary and surgical. Or do you believe firearms to be the pinnacle of the "arms" people are recognized as having the right to keep and bear?

I brought it up because for some reason, that shallow and easy idea gets lost in these debates, when the absolute rights crowd comes barging in with the "shall not" stuff, ignoring our reality and our history.

Reality is that the federal government was prohibited from making laws to restrict "arms" in the very general sense. This was a power left to the states, as also clearly stated in the same set of Amendments. Later some geniuses came around and decided that those restrictions should be placed on state governments and without any qualifications. So as common sense would dictate, if one restriction applies so do they all. Now we've a system where the law got painted into a corner and whiney fucking pussies would rather conveniently ignore that fact than muster up the votes to close the "loophole" properly. So here we are. Those with the ability to read and apply common sense vs. those who claim to represent it.

I don't "fully" support the 2nd I guess. I fully support the right to bear 'some' arm. I'm satisfied our 2nd is upheld if we can arm ourselves, even if those arms don't include ICBMs down through machine guns. A matter of degree, a flexible right. Certainly infringed upon and accepted as such, despite any careful legal or logical wriggling, or bullshit devices used to show that it doesn't really amount to infringement.

Fair enough my man. There's mechanisms of change that have been "democratically" enacted. I've no problem with an Amendment saying people can't have nukes. The only reason that won't come to a vote is because gun-grabbers would be subtly conceding because if you need an Amendment to limit nukes then you definitely need one to limit specific firearms or action types. That's their way of subverting the structure of getting the correct number of votes and going through proper channels to adapt to this new world that's always spoken of.

Machine guns are standard infantry arms so those are absolutely covered by the intent of the 2nd.

"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?"

That's a pretty clear violation of the Bill of Rights. It's a violation, and it is correct to violate it. In this context I won't justify it, but if we were having another kind of argument, one that builds on court decisions, digging into what our rights have been interpreted to mean vs. what it literally says in the Bill of Rights, then yeah I would try to justify it in that context.

Which SCOTUS case upholds prohibition of a particular firearm no matter one's criminal or mental status?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Are you aware that the Supreme Court ruled there is a individual right in 1939? What exactly is your position? That the Bill of Rights was not incorprated until the ratification of the 14th amendment? Or is it something else?

Can you maybe ask him to list all the incorrect SCOTUS decisions so we can unwind his current position?

 

[sloppypie]

Are you aware that the Supreme Court ruled there is a individual right in 1939? What exactly is your position? That the Bill of Rights was not incorprated until the ratification of the 14th amendment? Or is it something else?

no they didn't. you are thinking of the miller case, which was the national firearms act. more specifically a federal law regarding sawed off shotguns. and the ruling simply said that the act was not in violation of the second amendment.

which is why heller is a landmark case. it establishes rights never previously established by a supreme court. and why the subsequent case Mcdonald v. Chicago is landmark b/c it officially incorporates the 2nd amendment to apply to the states.

the bill of rights weren't incorporated until the mid 20th century. in fact, if you read the incorporation piece on wikipedia (which is accurate) i wouldn't have to explain this again. specifically:

In the 1940s and 1960s the Supreme Court gradually issued a series of decisions incorporating several of the specific rights from the Bill of Rights, so as to be binding upon the States

the second wasn't among the rights incorporated. it remained a federal only limitation until - yea you guessed it - mcdonald v. chicago.

it's really not complicated history. unless you don't know history, in which case i guess it's very complicated.

 

[sloppypie]

just fucking READ heller and the mcdonald cases. they are available for anyone in the world to read, they aren't secrets.

you guys keep bringing up statements as though they are facts like "uh well you are aware it was declared a right in 1939 right?" uh no, it wasn't. the fuck are you talking about?

here, i'll even link the cases again for you.

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

ruling: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

secondary source for easier read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

ruling: McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S.742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

so please enlighten me where these clear cut rules were previously established in 1939 or anywhere else, b/c i'm at a loss.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

the second wasn't among the rights incorporated. it remained a federal only limitation until - yea you guessed it - mcdonald v. chicago.

it's really not complicated history. unless you don't know history, in which case i guess it's very complicated.

What's not complicated is seeing how little appetite SCOTUS has for taking up firearms cases. Nor is it difficult to see how one side loses a case when they don't show up. It's also noticeable that you don't cite any cases. For such a learned dude you should be able to present a more circumspect view, don't you think?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Or is that not part of the ruling? Also notice the reference to lack of evidence, rather than someone providing evidence.

 

[Lord Coke]

no they didn't. you are thinking of the miller case, which was the national firearms act. more specifically a federal law regarding sawed off shotguns. and the ruling simply said that the act was not in violation of the second amendment.

which is why heller is a landmark case. it establishes rights never previously established by a supreme court. and why the subsequent case Mcdonald v. Chicago is landmark b/c it officially incorporates the 2nd amendment to apply to the states.

the bill of rights weren't incorporated until the mid 20th century. in fact, if you read the incorporation piece on wikipedia (which is accurate) i wouldn't have to explain this again. specifically:



the second wasn't among the rights incorporated. it remained a federal only limitation until - yea you guessed it - mcdonald v. chicago.

it's really not complicated history. unless you don't know history, in which case i guess it's very complicated.

If you think that you are not a serious poster. In Miller the Court found that there was an individual right but was unclear whether the arms at issue was protected becasue the Defendant did not submit briefing. in “the absence of any evidence tending to show”that a sawed-off shotgun
merited Second Amendment protection,and the gun’s suitability for
particular uses “not [being] within judicial notice,” Miller, 307U.S. at 178, the Supreme Court “remanded for further proceedings,” id.at 183.

That is not a hard case to read. So I am having a hard time taking anything else you post seriously.

 

[sloppypie]

and lets do US v. Miller since i'm in the fact checking mood. you brought this case up, and it literally did nothing that Heller and Mcdonald did. nothing. nothing at all.

let me repeat that. nothing. n-o-t-h-i-n-g.

If you think that you are not a serious poster. In Miller the Court found that there was an individual right but was unclear whether the arms at issue was protected becasue the Defendant did not submit briefing. in “the absence of any evidence tending to show”that a sawed-off shotgun
merited Second Amendment protection,and the gun’s suitability for
particular uses “not [being] within judicial notice,” Miller, 307U.S. at 178, the Supreme Court “remanded for further proceedings,” id.at 183.

That is not a hard case to read. So I am having a hard time taking anything else you post seriously.

miller didn't decide anything. there were no bright line rules, nothing. i don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse or you just enjoy trolling.

if you even read heller (which i know you didn't you'd even see your boy scalia writing about miller.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

literally read that. scalia is throwing pie in your face and saying the Miller case doesn't foreclose on the premise that there's a right to self defense. why does he say that? because the RULING and HOLDING of miller is that the sawed off shotgun in question can be legally prohibited by the federal government since the 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have one for militia purposes.

literally, the holding in miller is this:

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

that's all they held. that's it. they didn't state anywhere there's a right of self defense in the 2nd amendment. nowhere. had there been a follow up to the briefing then maybe something would've been held, but since there wasn't, there isn't.

jesus christ you're right, this isn't that hard. if what you are saying is true then there'd be zero point to having the heller case. zero point at all - supreme court would've said oh guys, miller case says you can't ban handguns b/c there's a private right to self defense, soz.

they didn't say that. why? b/c the miller court NEVER FUCKING RULED THAT WAY.

 

[sloppypie]

i also don't think you know what the fuck you are talking about @alanb. if your interpretation was correct, Miller would be a landmark case. LANDMARK.

instead, it's just some barely passable precedent of the supreme court even acknowledging the second amendment. your reading comprehension is literally shit.

 

[sloppypie]

one more for you - the supreme court reiterating their ruling in the Miller case by looking at Thomas' concurring opinion in Printz v. United States (1997):

Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." Id., at 178. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment.

so if the supreme court doesn't read what you are reading, then that must mean you have no idea what you are talking about. shocker.

 

[Lord Coke]

i also don't think you know what the fuck you are talking about @alanb. if your interpretation was correct, Miller would be a landmark case. LANDMARK.

instead, it's just some barely passable precedent of the supreme court even acknowledging the second amendment. your reading comprehension is literally shit.

Fair enough you are not very smart and I should ignore your posts. Thanks for clarifying that.

 

[sloppypie]

Fair enough you are not very smart and I should ignore your posts. Thanks for clarifying that.

bye.

 

[Byron Carter]

In fairness sloppypie, you're intellectually lazy, dishonest, and dull.

No one takes your shitty posts seriously, so just stop.

 

[sloppypie]

i don't think any of you actually know what the fuck you are talking about, is what i think.

only people being lazy, dishonest and dull are conservatives that don't live in fucking reality. you can't even discuss historical facts without them making shit up.

 

[Adamant]

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?

Absolutely agree, but with the criminally insane at the forefront of politics (ie the political left) it'll never happen.

 

[VulcanNervPinch]

So some crybabies aren't willing to take the bad with the good and that means that ignorance of the English language (and all available context) should be considered to have won the day?

Some sane people aren't willing to take the disastrous and unnecessary in order to bow down to pendaticalness.


You should probably read Byron's previous train wreck on the subject before commenting further on his ability to interpret.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

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.

I'm sorry that you don't have a love or your constitutionally protected rights.


The Nunn court’s decision has continuing relevance to the ongoing debate over gun rights. The Supreme Court in its ruling in Heller v. District of Columbia said Nunn, "...perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second amendment furthered the purpose announced in the prefatory clause...."[15][2] The Nunn court concept of fundamental rights was relevant to determine whether or not the Second Amendment is a restriction only on the federal government or whether the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right that cannot be infringed by the state governments




Btw- you should read all of Nunn:

But, their decisions were relevant to Georgia because the state constitutional protection of the right to keep and bear arms was not a newly given right, but was a recitation of an already existent right.

It is true, that these adjudications are all made on clauses in the State Constitutions; but these instruments confer no new rights on the people which did not belong to them before. When, I would ask, did any legislative body in the Union have the right to deny to its citizens the privilege of keeping and bearing arms in defence of themselves and their country?[11]

 

[RerouteToRemain]

Dred Scott vs Sandford (1857) - The court ruled Scott did not enjoy the protection of the Bill of Rights because of his racial background. However, in its ruling, it implies all free men do have the right to bear arms by indicating what would happen if he was indeed afforded full protection:

"It would give to persons of the negro race, ... the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ... the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

Presser vs Illinois (1886)
"We think it clear that there are no sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
Duncan vs Louisiana (1968)
This a 6th amendment case but here is a quote from justice Hugo Black mentioning the 2nd with the 14th
"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution ...the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms"
It seems that the courts at many different times held the belief that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms.
From what I've read the 1875 case does state that states don't have to include the bill of rights and that it is up to states to prosecute individuals and protect individuals rights. However the state didn't want to limit the rights of everyone, just blacks. I have a feeling this case may have been different if it weren't just after the civil war and didn't involve blacks.

Does this sound about right @alanb

 

[Lord Coke]

Dred Scott vs Sandford (1857) - The court ruled Scott did not enjoy the protection of the Bill of Rights because of his racial background. However, in its ruling, it implies all free men do have the right to bear arms by indicating what would happen if he was indeed afforded full protection:

"It would give to persons of the negro race, ... the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ... the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

Presser vs Illinois (1886)
"We think it clear that there are no sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
Duncan vs Louisiana (1968)
This a 6th amendment case but here is a quote from justice Hugo Black mentioning the 2nd with the 14th
"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution ...the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms"
It seems that the courts at many different times held the belief that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms.
From what I've read the 1875 case does state that states don't have to include the bill of rights and that it is up to states to prosecute individuals and protect individuals rights. However the state didn't want to limit the rights of everyone, just blacks. I have a feeling this case may have been different if it weren't just after the civil war and didn't involve blacks.

Does this sound about right @alanb

That's about right. Presser is an interesting case. It alludes to the Common Law doctrine that you have a right to arms but you don't have a right to go around scaring people by wearing unusual for the place armor or disturbing the peace by forming in large groups. My friend wrote an article about this doctrine. Here it is if you want to read about it. https://works.bepress.com/daniel_page/1/

 

[sloppypie]

this is the last time i'm going to explain this b/c i really can't tolerate the insufferable cuntery of conservatives when it comes to the boner they have for their guns.

1. heller and mcdonald are LANDMARK gun rights cases. no supreme court has ever ruled in this fashion on either one.
2. heller applied ONLY to federal jurisdictions and established (for the first time ever) that there was an individual right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes.

this is the point of confusion (b/c you are stupid) - this did not mean the second amendment didn't prevent the federal government from banning weapons in years past. but there is NO CASE PRECEDENCE that established what heller established. none. nada. zip. that is what makes heller LANDMARK.

3. mcdonald incorporated the second amendment to apply to the states. again, LANDMARK b/c no supreme court has ever held this in a ruling.

that means prior to mcdonald (which is all of US history), the second amendment did not protect any gun rights from the states to do what they wanted. this is a FACT. FACT FACT FACT.

4. Nunn is a state court case. that's great if you love it, and that they cited it in Heller as persuasive reasoning. but the fact they did this in heller does NOT mean the rulings in heller and mcdonald have always been there. that's not how fucking supreme court rulings work.

5. miller did NOT establish anything you are saying. the fact you are saying it does is just pure fucking lunacy. if it did, THAT would be the landmark case.

this has nothing to do w/ me trying to prove a point against gun rights. which is what you assholes don't get b/c you are fucking arrogant cunts. this is me trying to actually show what the ACTUAL history and rulings of the second amendment are. the fact you don't like them does not give you carte blanche cuntery to fucking rewrite history. this isn't a fucking texas state textbook, you don't get to declare the earth 6000 years old and jesus swam with raptors.

 

[Lord of Lies]

From what I remember, alanb is a lawyer that does 2nd Amendment cases. I'm guessing he has more knowledge in this area than you do. You should probably go back to Mayberry.

i don't think any of you actually know what the fuck you are talking about, is what i think.

only people being lazy, dishonest and dull are conservatives that don't live in fucking reality. you can't even discuss historical facts without them making shit up.