Tyranny of the ATF

[Suppressed Poet]

On the contrary, demonstrating a heavy handed misunderstanding of the United States Constitution to decry taxation as an impingement of rights requires pretty epic amounts of mental gymnastics. Particularly when you consider an example was used, illustrative or no, that some sort of poll tax which is specifically not allowed by a constitutional amendment is the same as an excise tax, which is allowed, is reaching far far up ones own ass.

PB was absolutely right and more eloquently stated that I reached my patience limit debating the GOAT retard champ.

I do find the irony of this post quite amusing though.

[Bhaalizmo]

Do we have a specific constitutional right to keep and bear alcohol, weed, or prostitution?

Edit: A good argument one could make is that the federal government currently taxes firearms & ammunition before this California state bill was passed, and has done so for roughly 100+ years. I would counter to say that it has yet to be challenged in the courts, but quite certain it would not pass muster for the standard of the Bruen decision. Perhaps a good thing that will come out of this law and subsequent legal challenge is that this will set legal precedent on that.

The right to bear arms has nothing to do with the sale or taxation of arms, which is regulated separately. Not by the constitution.

[Parkbandit]

The right to bear arms has nothing to do with the sale or taxation of arms, which is regulated separately. Not by the constitution.

Is it regulated in the 2nd Amendment, where it states "Well-regulated"?

[Suppressed Poet]

The right to bear arms has nothing to do with the sale or taxation of arms, which is regulated separately. Not by the constitution.

Sure it does. If the state taxes firearms that is clearly an infringement. It makes firearms inaccessible to economically challenged law abiding citizens.

This was already legally decided in the Civil Rights era of the 60s. It was the legal argument for the 24th amendment abolishing a poll tax to vote. What other defined Constitutional right are we taxed for exercising? Why is it ok in your mind to tax people on their 2nd Amendment rights but it’s not ok to do so for any other?

[Seran]

Property taxes aren't a Constitutional violation of the right to property, likewise taxes on firearm purchase aren't a violation of either the 2nd amendment. Given we're talking about actions by state applicable to it's citizens, federal supremecy clause doesn't apply either. Rights not reserves shall be relegated to the states.

[Suppressed Poet]

Property taxes aren't a Constitutional violation of the right to property, likewise taxes on firearm purchase aren't a violation of either the 2nd amendment. Given we're talking about actions by state applicable to it's citizens, federal supremecy clause doesn't apply either. Rights not reserves shall be relegated to the states.

Now you are on to something and I applaud you for making an actual intelligent point bringing up property & property tax.

Does the federal government directly tax citizens on property?

In regards to property, which by that I mean land, the Constitution specifically contains 3 provisions for taxation. The federal government is limited on direct tax, equal protection rule, & the privileges and immunities provision. It’s made clear that states can indeed tax property, but the federal government effectively cannot.

Now, what are the last 4 words in the 2nd amendment? Google the definition of the very last word.

[Suppressed Poet]

Let’s talk about another part of the Bruen Decision response bill passed by California.

One thing it does is require a face to face interview with law enforcement and letters from two character witnesses + your spouse if married. In addition, you need to pay some pretty steep fees/taxes for the license to carry. Lastly, for doing all that, the state named 26 places prohibiting the carry of a firearm deemed “sensitive”. A public side walk is effectively the only place you are allowed to exercise your right in public.

Imagine doing that to any of your other rights. Whether you choose to exercise them or not, these are YOUR rights as much as they are all law abiding citizens.

[Seran]

Now you are on to something and I applaud you for making an actual intelligent point bringing up property & property tax.

Does the federal government directly tax citizens on property?

In regards to property, which by that I mean land, the Constitution specifically contains 3 provisions for taxation. The federal government is limited on direct tax, equal protection rule, & the privileges and immunities provision. It’s made clear that states can indeed tax property, but the federal government effectively cannot.

Now, what are the last 4 words in the 2nd amendment? Google the definition of the very last word.

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.

[Seran]

Let’s talk about another part of the Bruen Decision response bill passed by California.

One thing it does is require a face to face interview with law enforcement and letters from two character witnesses + your spouse if married. In addition, you need to pay some pretty steep fees/taxes for the license to carry. Lastly, for doing all that, the state named 26 places prohibiting the carry of a firearm deemed “sensitive”. A public side walk is effectively the only place you are allowed to exercise your right in public.

Imagine doing that to any of your other rights. Whether you choose to exercise them or not, these are YOUR rights as much as they are all law abiding citizens.

The state of Texas makes it illegal to carry a firearm in a place of worship if the church posts the prohibition. Why aren't you crying about that too? For that matter why are you carrying on about the State of California passing an excise tax like it's some new thing, when the federal government already has such a tax on firearms and ammunition.

[Suppressed Poet]

The state of Texas makes it illegal to carry a firearm in a place of worship if the church posts the prohibition. Why aren't you crying about that too? For that matter why are you carrying on about the State of California passing an excise tax like it's some new thing, when the federal government already has such a tax on firearms and ammunition.

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.