Tyranny of the ATF

[Suppressed Poet]

But the federal government isn't the one doing this taxation, the state of California is which is why your tangent is pointless. You earlier implied an argument that by making guns more expensive, they're violating the 2nd amendment, which was disproven. If you need further rational, an 11% tax on a good isn't an undue burden regardless, nor is it an infringement no more than direct taxation of income is an infringement.

Let’s do some quick real world situation math.

Let’s say a brand X modern striker fire pistol costs $400. Now apply a 11% federal tax + 11% California tax = 22% or $88 in this example. That $400 pistol now costs the consumer $488. Now you’re a poor broke mofo, right? Are you going to lie and say $88 extra a poor person would need to pay isn’t excessive and could make a necessary tool to defend their life outside of their budget? What is to stop California from increasing that tax to 1000% in the future? Do you only want rich people, their private security, and police & military to be able to afford guns? Do you realize the United States Revolution was kicked off after a 10% import tax on British tea?

[Seran]

Any place of business or worship can post proper signage prohibiting the carry of firearms on their property. Why am I not upset? Because it’s the individual choice of the business owner or church. It’s their property and their rules to allow firearms or not. I fail to see what point you are trying to make as that’s clearly not government infringement.

I proactively addressed the existing federal government taxing it too. It hasn’t been challenged in the courts yet, but I find that to be unconstitutional as well. The new Bruen Decision makes the burden on government to any restriction to the 2nd Amendment only legal if it is in the history, text, and tradition at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. You know what didn’t exist back in 1791?: A federal tax on firearms.

Wow that's a lot of wishful thinking on your part, not gonna talk you out of it but I hope your dreams aren't as crushed as it likely will be. There is functionally no distinction between the government restricting firearms of someone puts us to a sign, or the government simply restricts carry in specific areas. In both situations the government is the causal source.

[~Rocktar~]

Wow that's a lot of wishful thinking on your part, not gonna talk you out of it but I hope your dreams aren't as crushed as it likely will be. There is functionally no distinction between the government restricting firearms of someone puts us to a sign, or the government simply restricts carry in specific areas. In both situations the government is the causal source.

Wrong. The Constitution restricts the government from doing it. The Constitution does not restrict private citizens from doing it.

[Suppressed Poet]

Wow that's a lot of wishful thinking on your part, not gonna talk you out of it but I hope your dreams aren't as crushed as it likely will be. There is functionally no distinction between the government restricting firearms of someone puts us to a sign, or the government simply restricts carry in specific areas. In both situations the government is the causal source.

I complimented you when you had something intelligent to say/ask, but now I’ve got to tell you this post is incredibly stupid. You don’t understand the distinction between a place of worship having the option to legally restrict firearms on their own property vs the government mandating where a person can legally carry? Try real hard to rub the few remaining brain cells you have together and think on it.

Edit: Seran let me help you… Situation 1) California passes a law saying no two consenting adults may have sexual contact. Situation 2) California passes a law saying that rape is a punishable crime (rape defined as when a person has sexual relations with another person without their consent). You agree #1 is wrongfully oppressive but #2 is absolutely a good normal law? Now apply that same logic to what we’re talking about with carrying a firearm inside a place of worship or someone’s business.

[Realk]

I just want to point out guns being allowed in Church or not.. When that guy started trying to shoot at people in church a few years ago.. There was at least 8 guys that pulled out guns ready to stop the situation. Somewhere in south Texas.

I do not think I'd carry in church and break the rules, but I'm sure they were happy that some members of the congregation did so that day.

[Methais]

Wow that's a lot of wishful thinking on your part, not gonna talk you out of it but I hope your dreams aren't as crushed as it likely will be. There is functionally no distinction between the government restricting firearms of someone puts us to a sign, or the government simply restricts carry in specific areas. In both situations the government is the causal source.

Jesus Christ just when I didn't think you could get anymore retarded, even though I should know better by now.

[Parkbandit]

Jesus Christ just when I didn't think you could get anymore retarded, even though I should know better by now.

To be fair.. that's on you. Seran is an alpha level retard and there is no way to determine the absolute depth his retardation can reach if he really doesn't put his mind to it.

[Suppressed Poet]

I just want to point out guns being allowed in Church or not.. When that guy started trying to shoot at people in church a few years ago.. There was at least 8 guys that pulled out guns ready to stop the situation. Somewhere in south Texas.

I do not think I'd carry in church and break the rules, but I'm sure they were happy that some members of the congregation did so that day.

They changed the law a few years ago for that reason. If a church wants to prohibit carry in Texas they post 30.06 and 30.07 signage just like any other establishment. It gets a little more tricky if the church also has a school, in which case you have to follow the mixed-use laws.

There are a few places I frequent that don’t want firearms in their establishment & have the proper legal signage (notably a popular breakfast spot). I know for a fact many people simply ignore those signs, but me…I do my very best to be law abiding.

[Seran]

I complimented you when you had something intelligent to say/ask, but now I’ve got to tell you this post is incredibly stupid. You don’t understand the distinction between a place of worship having the option to legally restrict firearms on their own property vs the government mandating where a person can legally carry? Try real hard to rub the few remaining brain cells you have together and think on it.

Edit: Seran let me help you… Situation 1) California passes a law saying no two consenting adults may have sexual contact. Situation 2) California passes a law saying that rape is a punishable crime (rape defined as when a person has sexual relations with another person without their consent). You agree #1 is wrongfully oppressive but #2 is absolutely a good normal law? Now apply that same logic to what we’re talking about with carrying a firearm inside a place of worship or someone’s business.

Your hyperbole continues to be stupid and pointless. Both situations with the firearm carry are as a result of government restrictions, but you blatantly ignore it for the sake of a faulty argument.

[Realk]

I thought that the point we we're going for was that a sign on the wall doesn't effect what a bad person will do. So the fact that were people there to stop him also armed is was a good thing.