As the Heller opinion affirmed gun ownership as in individual right, and as individual rights may not be taxed (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)), how is it that we pay 10% FET on the retail price of a new gun, sales tax on any gun purchased via a licensee, 11% FET on the retail price of ammo + sales tax? ITAR tax if you're a manufacturer...etc, etc. You get the idea. It would be very interesting to get a gunny attorneys take on this if you know any that are interested.I don't have a qualified legal opinion to give him.
Do you?
7 comments:
This might be a good Question for David Hardy from Of Arms and the Law.
Gad, I've never studied the interaction of tax law and fundamental rights much. There might be a distinction in that the gun and ammo FET is earmarked for spending on hunting and shooting ranges, if I remember correction, and so acts to encourage exercise of the protected right. Whether that's a valid distinction, I dunno.There was also a case involving, if I remember, the Minneapolis Star, where the Court hold the state couldn't tax newsprint in a discriminatory manner (I think the law gave exemptions to, essentially, every newspaper in the state except the Star).
@Dave Hardy:
IANAL, but the Minneapolis Star decision was decided based on the tax not "kicking in" until the newspaper used more than $100,000 (at the time) worth of paper and ink in a calendar year. This, IIRC, violated the First Amendment's "freedom of the press" guarantee, as no other businesses or industries were covered by this "special use tax".
The Star paid the tax, sued for a refund, and the lawsuit got the tax overturned entirely.
Decision here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/460/575.html
How about "they're not taxing the right, they're taxing one possible set of tools that might be used to exercise the right?" Followed by the alternative "because nobody's challenged it and taken it up to the Supremes yet, since rights are not self-enforcing nor does magic occur just because the Supreme Court (are you listening, Justice Marshall?) issues an opinion. :-)
IAAL, but the above should not be taken as any sort of legal advice - merely internet blather.
What happened to the simple "I am not a robot" checkbox? Now I'm having to observe and correlate geographical features???? I suppose that's one way to keep the illiterati from posting, but maaaaan....
Beats me, IOL. I just use the free blogger service and what it comes with.
@ Infamous Oregon Lawhobbit:
It's cookie-based, I believe. As long as the cookie isn't expired, you should just get the "I'm not a robot" check-box.
But cookies expire, and then you have to correlate the features (I'm usually asked about food - "Find all the hamburgers" and such) to get a new one.
The long and short is, expect it to happen periodically, or constantly if your browser settings don't use/save cookies.
In one page of commentary you guys went from a legitimate legal question to discussing "cookies". How about we take this "taxing rights" seriously? As Doug C's elder brother I take this stuff to heart. The argument is a valid one worthy of a bit more respect.
This taxation business enters into the "shall not be infringed" portion of the 2nd amendment directly. There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that allows for any pecuniary infringement at all that I can find. If you cannot afford the taxes then you cannot carry a gun BUT you are given the right to carry a gun says the Constitution that shall not be infringed. There is a direct conflict there that deserves a fair hearing by SCOTUS. Either we have a inalienable right to carry guns or we don't. Taxes and/or fees hinder my ability to carry a gun. Period."
Post a Comment