Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Posted: 7/3/2012 8:31:49 AM EDT
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/07/can_government_now_tax_handgun_ammunition_10000.html

Conservatives still reeling from Chief Justice John Roberts's decision to uphold the 2,700-page ObamaCare legislation as a Federal tax are rightly worried that Roberts opened the door to unlimited Federal coercion of the American public through the tax code.



Link Posted: 7/3/2012 8:33:13 AM EDT
[#1]
Could happen.
Link Posted: 7/3/2012 8:33:14 AM EDT
[#2]
Yes, and they always could. SCOTUS obamacare decision is not applicable here.
Link Posted: 7/3/2012 8:34:51 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
Yes, and they always could. SCOTUS obamacare decision is not applicable here.


Yep.  

Pretty much the entire intention of the NFA.

Remember, in 1934 a Tommy Gun cost about $15.   So a $200 tax was a huge thing.

ETA:  What Roberts did was permit Congress not to tax a thing, or an action, but to tax an INACTION.

And THAT is bad shit.

Examples:  

Any adult who doesn't go to the blood bank weekly gets taxed $500.
Any adult who does not fill out an organ donor card gets taxed $2000.
Any adult who fails to sign up for the civilian jobs corps gets taxed $10,000
Any adult who fails to go to the gym weekly gets taxed $2000
Link Posted: 7/3/2012 8:35:30 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
Yes, and they always could.



Enhanced for clarity.  
Link Posted: 7/3/2012 8:36:11 AM EDT
[#5]
Have people been asleep since the NFA was passed?

Do you realize how much $200 was back in the 30s?
Link Posted: 7/3/2012 8:36:21 AM EDT
[#6]
After what we've seen this administration pull ?

Nothing would surprise me any more .



Regardless , if you arent well stocked , then you need to do some shopping
Link Posted: 7/3/2012 8:37:05 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Yes, and they always could. SCOTUS obamacare decision is not applicable here.


yep.
didn't senator Metzenbaum of OH suggest that years ago? He even described as a way to 'ban them all", IIRC.
Link Posted: 7/3/2012 8:37:59 AM EDT
[#8]
Always could.

Nothing to do with this decision.

There are very few limits on the taxing authority.


Link Posted: 7/3/2012 8:38:20 AM EDT
[#9]
Seems, if they were so inclined, that they could tax you $10,000 for NOT buying ammo.
Link Posted: 7/3/2012 8:39:49 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes, and they always could. SCOTUS obamacare decision is not applicable here.


Yep.  

Pretty much the entire intention of the NFA.

Remember, in 1934 a Tommy Gun cost about $15.   So a $200 tax was a huge thing.



I've always wondered how that was legal with this case in mind:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=460&invol=575
Link Posted: 7/3/2012 8:42:11 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Seems, if they were so inclined, that they could tax you $10,000 for NOT buying ammo.


Now, the obamacare decision would be applicable in this case. I propose we tax people without guns on the basis that they don't contribute their fair share to the safety of the general public and the rest of us have to pick up the tab when the police are called.
Link Posted: 7/3/2012 8:44:33 AM EDT
[#12]
Effectively, they can do whatever they want.
Link Posted: 7/3/2012 8:47:02 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes, and they always could. SCOTUS obamacare decision is not applicable here.


Yep.  

Pretty much the entire intention of the NFA.

Remember, in 1934 a Tommy Gun cost about $15.   So a $200 tax was a huge thing.



I've always wondered how that was legal with this case in mind:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=460&invol=575


A $200 tax on Dick Heller's pistol would undoubtedly be thrown out by operation of that precedent.

But Scalia's dicta in the cases suggest full auto is not protected by the 2nd amendment, so full auto presumably could be singled out for punitive treatment.

I don't like it.    My legal test for "what" arms are protected by the 2nd amendment is simple:  (A) is it capable of being used by a reasonably skilled individual citizen other than as an area effect weapon (e.g., more precisely than a bazooka or hand grenade); and (B) is it now or has it ever been issued to DOMESTIC law enforcement for use in policing ordinary citizens.

Its a simple test, and its a fair test.  If the police start using phased plasma rifles in the 40 watt range to conduct community policing, then we should have a 2nd amendment right to own such things.    Same time, I think area effect weapons like missiles, RPGs, hand grenades, and claymores are probably too much in the area effect area, and anyway, police don't have these things for use against civilians in regular policing.

Link Posted: 7/3/2012 8:47:10 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Effectively, they can do whatever they want.


Link Posted: 7/3/2012 8:48:34 AM EDT
[#15]
Link Posted: 7/3/2012 8:48:48 AM EDT
[#16]
Why do people ask these questions?  Simple answer, the government can tax anything so long as the majority of the serfs pay the tax.
Link Posted: 7/3/2012 8:57:37 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes, and they always could. SCOTUS obamacare decision is not applicable here.


Bingo.

They've ALWAYS had that ability.  Think about how large a $200 NFA tax was in 1934.  You could buy a brand new Ford V8 sedan off the showroom floor for about $500 in 1934.  






See my post above.  The 1934 tax was on the ACTION of transferring a certain thing.

Roberts has expanded the tax power to tax "inaction" or more precisely inaction when the government wants you to take action.

Try this one on for size:   "Any subject over the age of 18 who fails to annually submit to the Government form GG2235 identifying every gun owner known to the person, shall be liable for a $10,000.00 tax.   Any person who fails to complete such form properly as determined by an audit conducted by the Department shall be fined $100,000.00."

Link Posted: 7/3/2012 9:06:22 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes, and they always could. SCOTUS obamacare decision is not applicable here.


Bingo.

They've ALWAYS had that ability.  Think about how large a $200 NFA tax was in 1934.  You could buy a brand new Ford V8 sedan off the showroom floor for about $500 in 1934.  





They always could in a real sense, but I don't think it was constitutional.

Otherwise, why even have a list of powers of the legislature?   What's next?  You don't have to submit to an unreasonable search, but you have to pay a tax for refusal? $10,000 tax per word on a blog?  $50,000 tax per child?

Frankly, as far as I am concerned, the Federal government jumped the shark with this last decision.  I am 100% serious when I say that the Federal government has officially outlived it's desirability. To me, anyways.  In my humble opinion, I think the American people would be better off without it at this point.  If the primary purpose of government is to protect life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness, then why grant to government the power to tax life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness at a level intentionally designed to hinder those things???

What sort of government should replace it?  I have no idea.  Something with more power than the confederation government?  Sure.  Something with less power than the previous Federal government?  I would hope so.  We've already proven that humans couldn't be trusted with that much power.

Yeah, flame on with the anarchist epithets.  I don't give a fuck.
Link Posted: 7/3/2012 9:13:02 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Yes, and they always could. SCOTUS obamacare decision is not applicable here.


means that they can now tax you if you don't have ammunition.

Quoted:

Now, the obamacare decision would be applicable in this case. I propose we tax people without guns on the basis that they don't contribute their fair share to the safety of the general public and the rest of us have to pick up the tab when the police are called.


We're working on that.  
Link Posted: 7/3/2012 9:14:59 AM EDT
[#20]
I think internet forums should be taxed $10,000 for every post a member makes on them.  Sound good?  Sound constitutional?

Hey, it's not like it's limiting free speech.  Anyone is free to make whatever speech they can afford.
Link Posted: 7/3/2012 9:16:41 AM EDT
[#21]
There already is a tax on ammo.



They can raise it at anytime.



 
Link Posted: 7/3/2012 9:19:08 AM EDT
[#22]



Quoted:




The 1934 tax was on the ACTION of transferring a certain thing.





Or MAKING.



 
Link Posted: 7/3/2012 9:22:26 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Effectively, they can do whatever they want.


Which is effectively why a good house cleaning is in order.

I mean top to bottom, all of you, here's your pink slip, GTFO.
Link Posted: 7/3/2012 9:23:23 AM EDT
[#24]
Yes. It would be a tax, not a penalty.
Link Posted: 7/3/2012 9:26:02 AM EDT
[#25]
They could have done it before.

However, now they could tax for not owning a gun.
Link Posted: 7/3/2012 9:27:15 AM EDT
[#26]
yep
Link Posted: 7/3/2012 9:28:04 AM EDT
[#27]
Link Posted: 7/3/2012 9:41:17 AM EDT
[#28]
It always could happen. You've seen how much they tax cigarettes, right?

Govt. can tax any interstate commerce that they way.
Link Posted: 7/3/2012 9:44:46 AM EDT
[#29]



Quoted:



Quoted:

Yes, and they always could. SCOTUS obamacare decision is not applicable here.




Yep.  



Pretty much the entire intention of the NFA.



Remember, in 1934 a Tommy Gun cost about $15.   So a $200 tax was a huge thing.



ETA:  What Roberts did was permit Congress not to tax a thing, or an action, but to tax an INACTION.



And THAT is bad shit.



Examples:  



Any adult who doesn't go to the blood bank weekly gets taxed $500.

Any adult who does not fill out an organ donor card gets taxed $2000.

Any adult who fails to sign up for the civilian jobs corps gets taxed $10,000

Any adult who fails to go to the gym weekly gets taxed $2000



This is going to hit Arfcom's pocketbook as hard or harder than an ammo tax.

 
Link Posted: 7/3/2012 9:59:07 AM EDT
[#30]



Quoted:


Effectively, they can do whatever they want.


I think it's pretty much always been that way.

 
Link Posted: 7/3/2012 10:00:11 AM EDT
[#31]
Link Posted: 7/3/2012 10:05:12 AM EDT
[#32]
yes
Link Posted: 7/3/2012 10:12:05 AM EDT
[#33]
i liked col wests idea.  tax people who dont own firearms then watch liberals' heads explode.  would be EPIC
 
Link Posted: 7/3/2012 10:23:07 AM EDT
[#34]
Yes and a principled POTUS could grant all U.S. citizens a waiver except liberal protection details.
Link Posted: 7/3/2012 10:25:53 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Always could.

Nothing to do with this decision.

There are very few no limits on the taxing authority.




Link Posted: 7/3/2012 10:28:24 AM EDT
[#36]
I'm honestly surprised they haven't done this already.
Link Posted: 7/3/2012 10:30:31 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
I'm honestly surprised they haven't done this already.


It's been proposed. Some of the usual moonbats in Congress (McCarthy, Schumer, etc.) have tried to do it before and introduced bills that of course went nowhere.
Link Posted: 7/3/2012 10:31:50 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes, and they always could. SCOTUS obamacare decision is not applicable here.


Yep.  

Pretty much the entire intention of the NFA.

Remember, in 1934 a Tommy Gun cost about $15.   So a $200 tax was a huge thing.



I've always wondered how that was legal with this case in mind:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=460&invol=575


By 1983, a $200 tax wasn't prohibitive.
Link Posted: 7/3/2012 10:39:27 AM EDT
[#39]

Hate to tell you this, but Congress could always have used taxes to make ammo prohibitively expensive, bought any white phosphorus matches lately?



Congress used their power of taxation to eliminate white phosphorus matches for the much safer red phosphorus matches in 1913.  






Link Posted: 7/3/2012 10:49:29 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes, and they always could. SCOTUS obamacare decision is not applicable here.


Yep.  

Pretty much the entire intention of the NFA.

Remember, in 1934 a Tommy Gun cost about $15.   So a $200 tax was a huge thing.



I've always wondered how that was legal with this case in mind:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=460&invol=575


By 1983, a $200 tax wasn't prohibitive.


Going somewhat off the purpose of the thread here (sorry OP) but I've always wondered why U.S. v. Rock Island Armory hasn't been cited more often to overturn the 1986 ban:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/court/fed/us_v_rock_island.htm

Essentially the court found that the NFA tax was only constitutional as a tax (citing prior case law) and that the Fed Gov's refusal to accept a tax payment for post-1986 manufacture machine guns negated the NFA tax as, in fact, being a tax. They therefore told Fed Gov to pound sand.

Link Posted: 7/3/2012 10:50:53 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes, and they always could. SCOTUS obamacare decision is not applicable here.


Yep.  

Pretty much the entire intention of the NFA.

Remember, in 1934 a Tommy Gun cost about $15.   So a $200 tax was a huge thing.

ETA:  What Roberts did was permit Congress not to tax a thing, or an action, but to tax an INACTION.

And THAT is bad shit.

Examples:  

Any adult who doesn't go to the blood bank weekly gets taxed $500.
Any adult who does not fill out an organ donor card gets taxed $2000.
Any adult who fails to sign up for the civilian jobs corps gets taxed $10,000
Any adult who fails to go to the gym weekly gets taxed $2000


Actually, a Thompson sold for ~$200...still a prohibative tax.

Link Posted: 7/3/2012 10:53:33 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes, and they always could. SCOTUS obamacare decision is not applicable here.


Yep.  

Pretty much the entire intention of the NFA.

Remember, in 1934 a Tommy Gun cost about $15.   So a $200 tax was a huge thing.



I've always wondered how that was legal with this case in mind:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=460&invol=575


By 1983, a $200 tax wasn't prohibitive.


Going somewhat off the purpose of the thread here (sorry OP) but I've always wondered why U.S. v. Rock Island Armory hasn't been cited more often to overturn the 1986 ban:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/court/fed/us_v_rock_island.htm

Essentially the court found that the NFA tax was only constitutional as a tax (citing prior case law) and that the Fed Gov's refusal to accept a tax payment for post-1986 manufacture machine guns negated the NFA tax as, in fact, being a tax. They therefore told Fed Gov to pound sand.



We now have a strong 5:4 liberal majority on the court.  Really 4 + 3/4 + 3/4 vs 3.  Between Roberts and Kennedy anything can be passed.  And the idiots who think a commerce clause "limit" affects anything are almost funny.  I can see it now
obama: "Wait, let me get this straight.  To get Robert's vote for a majority I have to tax someone?"

ETA:
Quoted:
But a $1 poll tax is still unconstitutional.


Well, it's a good thing we don't have a constitutional right to ammo, eh?  

ETA2: Or maybe we should go with the spirit of the Import ban.  We'll tax "firing pins", which "constitutionally protected muzzle loaders don't have"!  BRILLIANT!
Link Posted: 7/3/2012 10:57:29 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes, and they always could. SCOTUS obamacare decision is not applicable here.


Yep.  

Pretty much the entire intention of the NFA.

Remember, in 1934 a Tommy Gun cost about $15.   So a $200 tax was a huge thing.



I've always wondered how that was legal with this case in mind:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=460&invol=575


By 1983, a $200 tax wasn't prohibitive.


But a $1 poll tax is still unconstitutional.
Link Posted: 7/3/2012 10:58:11 AM EDT
[#44]
to hell with all these guns..im gonna buy some body armor and learn karate..
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top