...this Article argues that enough is known about the history of gun and ammunition taxes, the differences between the First and Second Amendments, and the decade of post-Heller lower-court jurisprudence to conclude that most proposed gun-violence-prevention taxes are constitutional. [More]It depends upon what the meaning of the word "infringed" is.
I guess the Democrats know their low-income constituents better than I do, and can count on their continued votes no matter how unaffordable they make self-defense in neighborhoods with heightened need.
Pretty "progressive," eh?
And forget that the ones causing the problems won't be paying taxes.
[Via Michael G]
4 comments:
Murdock v Pennsylvania.....the ruling of the Supreme Court.... You can't impose a tax on the exercise of a Right...this needs to be screamed to the rest of the country....
The Supreme Court already ruled on this, the lower courts are ignoring this as well.....in Murdock V Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court ruled you cannot tax the exercise of a Right......this needs to be spread among the gun community so they can start hammering politicians and judges with this.
I posted a comment on that site about re-imposing poll taxes.
Needless to say, they deleted it.
Heller embodied the concept of 'reasonable restrictions', meaning, anything short of outright prohibition.
Post a Comment