swbuckmaster
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,004
10,000 dollar fine
- Thread starter swbuckmaster
- Start date
A million dollar liability package in one state, 7 round limits in another and now Cal wants to register every ammunition purchase. Tax the heck out of ammo is coming. It all will end up in the SC and they will have to rule on all of the new democrat rules designed to limit the second amendment rights. I hope it happens soon so we can be sure that we actually have the right to keep and bear arms that are loaded.
NeMont
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 12,632
I think there is over two hundred years of SC decision that says congress has the power to tax, so going to the SC for that would be a waste of time. The way to stop that tax is to never allow it to get to the floor of the House or Senate, which is exactly what will happen.
It will be interesting to see how soon these laws will be heard by the SC and even if the SC will be willing to take them up.
Nemont
It will be interesting to see how soon these laws will be heard by the SC and even if the SC will be willing to take them up.
Nemont
I think if the SC thinks that these new taxes and laws at state level are designed to circumvent the second they will take the case. Pretty obvious that restricting ammo, creating insurance requirements and restricting clips to less than most common pistols and rifles use is a plan to restrict the second.
tailchasers
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,323
"They have allowed states to require insurnace for you autos "
True but then owning a vehicle isn't a right. It's a privaledge.
"Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway."
True but then owning a vehicle isn't a right. It's a privaledge.
"Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway."
NeMont
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 12,632
So you can't require insurance for rights? How come there is insurance available to protect from being sued for libel and slader and other forms of speech?
Congress has a right to levy taxes, don't think there is anything in any Supreme Court decision that says they can't tax you on something in the bill of rights. Or have to buy insurance as long as they call it a tax.
Not saying it is right just saying there is lots of precedents.
Nemont
Congress has a right to levy taxes, don't think there is anything in any Supreme Court decision that says they can't tax you on something in the bill of rights. Or have to buy insurance as long as they call it a tax.
Not saying it is right just saying there is lots of precedents.
Nemont
RELH
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 17,483
Nemont, maybe you should stick to medical insurance as your area of expertise. You are reaching for a long stretch on what may be lawful or unlawful concerning taxes on autos and ammunition.
As pointed out to you being able to drive on our nation's highways is only a privilege granted by goverment, not a right covered under our constitution.
If the taxation of ammo is seen as a means to circumvent the 2nd ammendant on the right of possession and use of firearms, the SC may be more willing to take it under admission for review more then you seem to think. There is a possibility that it may even fall under the commerece laws which the SC have ruled on in the past few years for violation of commerce.
Instead of wasting your time trying to spin things about the NRA or what the Supreme Court may or may not do. why don't you do something positive about gun ownership and confine your endeavors to writing to your Democrat Montana senators and give them a good argument about staying aboard on not voting for anti gun laws that are not worth the paper they are written on.
You have said that your Democrat Senators are more conservative in Montana then they are here in Ca. on gun laws. So writing them may be more constructive then posting your spin on things on this board.
Since you do not want to spend 35 bucks a year on NRA membership, use that 35 bucks for stamps to write your politicians every year and we will consider you as doing something positive for gun ownership in leu of being a NRA member.
RELH
As pointed out to you being able to drive on our nation's highways is only a privilege granted by goverment, not a right covered under our constitution.
If the taxation of ammo is seen as a means to circumvent the 2nd ammendant on the right of possession and use of firearms, the SC may be more willing to take it under admission for review more then you seem to think. There is a possibility that it may even fall under the commerece laws which the SC have ruled on in the past few years for violation of commerce.
Instead of wasting your time trying to spin things about the NRA or what the Supreme Court may or may not do. why don't you do something positive about gun ownership and confine your endeavors to writing to your Democrat Montana senators and give them a good argument about staying aboard on not voting for anti gun laws that are not worth the paper they are written on.
You have said that your Democrat Senators are more conservative in Montana then they are here in Ca. on gun laws. So writing them may be more constructive then posting your spin on things on this board.
Since you do not want to spend 35 bucks a year on NRA membership, use that 35 bucks for stamps to write your politicians every year and we will consider you as doing something positive for gun ownership in leu of being a NRA member.
RELH
NeMont
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 12,632
RELH
Maybe you should stick to retirement as your area of expertise. You can't answer the question about the court holding that Congress has the power to tax? No court decision I have found has held that said that power is limited to only things no written into the bill of rights.
That isn't grasping at anything. States over taxing things that makes it difficult to conduct interstate commerce has been ruled as not being allowed under the commerce clause but not a federal tax that applies equally across the country.
I have spent far more than $35 already on the gun fight and I didn't help fly Wayne to his island get away or build a bigger HQ's building for him.
So answer the question, where has the court ruled that tax ammo is off limits, seems to me that there is an excise tax to fund the Pittman-Robertson act. Sportsman wanted that tax to help fund conservation.
I am not saying it is right or even desirable to require insurance or to tax ammo further. If you hang you hat on the Court they have a habit of ruling in unexpected ways. I heard for 8 months that Obamacare was unconstitutional yet here we are. What makes you so certain the court wants to legislate from the bench?
Can you find where the Senators from my state have led the charge on a renewed AWB? I can't, I can finds reams of laws purposed, supported and written by a Senator from CA.
So please show me the case that says a Federal tax passed by congress is not constitutional, then show me where anything in the bill of rights has been ruled off limits to taxation or some regulation.
Show me those cases and I will join as a life member of the NRA and never bad mouth Wayne again.
Nemont
Maybe you should stick to retirement as your area of expertise. You can't answer the question about the court holding that Congress has the power to tax? No court decision I have found has held that said that power is limited to only things no written into the bill of rights.
That isn't grasping at anything. States over taxing things that makes it difficult to conduct interstate commerce has been ruled as not being allowed under the commerce clause but not a federal tax that applies equally across the country.
I have spent far more than $35 already on the gun fight and I didn't help fly Wayne to his island get away or build a bigger HQ's building for him.
So answer the question, where has the court ruled that tax ammo is off limits, seems to me that there is an excise tax to fund the Pittman-Robertson act. Sportsman wanted that tax to help fund conservation.
I am not saying it is right or even desirable to require insurance or to tax ammo further. If you hang you hat on the Court they have a habit of ruling in unexpected ways. I heard for 8 months that Obamacare was unconstitutional yet here we are. What makes you so certain the court wants to legislate from the bench?
Can you find where the Senators from my state have led the charge on a renewed AWB? I can't, I can finds reams of laws purposed, supported and written by a Senator from CA.
So please show me the case that says a Federal tax passed by congress is not constitutional, then show me where anything in the bill of rights has been ruled off limits to taxation or some regulation.
Show me those cases and I will join as a life member of the NRA and never bad mouth Wayne again.
Nemont
RELH
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 17,483
LAST EDITED ON Apr-04-13 AT 08:56AM (MST)[p]Nemont, are you really that ignorant. SCOTUS has been making new laws for many years due to changes never expected when our consitution was first written.
There is one thing to have a reasonable state or federal tax on ammo that is equal to taxes on other products. To place a outrageous tax on ammo as the means to stop people from buying ammo will be a new front that has never been before the court.
Maybe you need to take a few courses in law and brush up before engaging your mouth.
RELH
P.S. Re-read my post. I conceded that our politicians in CA. were worse then yours when coming to anti gun laws. The only thing that prevents your state democrats from following party line is the fear of losing their jobs.
What really hurt us in CA. is the fact we had too many people like you that sit on the sidelines and allowed our politicians to get away with passing new gun laws. The democrat policy of divide and conquer really worked here and I can see it is working in Montana as you are a very good example of it's success.
There is one thing to have a reasonable state or federal tax on ammo that is equal to taxes on other products. To place a outrageous tax on ammo as the means to stop people from buying ammo will be a new front that has never been before the court.
Maybe you need to take a few courses in law and brush up before engaging your mouth.
RELH
P.S. Re-read my post. I conceded that our politicians in CA. were worse then yours when coming to anti gun laws. The only thing that prevents your state democrats from following party line is the fear of losing their jobs.
What really hurt us in CA. is the fact we had too many people like you that sit on the sidelines and allowed our politicians to get away with passing new gun laws. The democrat policy of divide and conquer really worked here and I can see it is working in Montana as you are a very good example of it's success.
NeMont
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 12,632
LAST EDITED ON Apr-04-13 AT 09:09AM (MST)[p]Let's see your law degree.
Can you find where the SC has defined the limits of congresses ability to tax? Your law degree credentials should give you access to those cases at your finger tips.
The ruling on the ACA stated that basically congress can tax anything. Go read the decision, Roberts left open the possibility of putting a limit on congresses ability to tax to affect behavior but he declined define what the limits are.
Maybe you should take a double dose of Geritol and get your legal staff to produce the cases I asked you to show that set the precedence you claim is already there.
Nemont
PS I don't sit on the sidelines in politics and I have never given a single dime to any democrat candidate on any level. So believe as you wish. Republican control both the House and Senate in Montana and I have supported the Republican party in every election here since I have been old enough to vote.
You are the typical voter in California, declaring you are defeated before you start and willingly being divided by the Democrats of your state. Clean up your own state first before ruining the rest of the west.
Can you find where the SC has defined the limits of congresses ability to tax? Your law degree credentials should give you access to those cases at your finger tips.
The ruling on the ACA stated that basically congress can tax anything. Go read the decision, Roberts left open the possibility of putting a limit on congresses ability to tax to affect behavior but he declined define what the limits are.
Maybe you should take a double dose of Geritol and get your legal staff to produce the cases I asked you to show that set the precedence you claim is already there.
Nemont
PS I don't sit on the sidelines in politics and I have never given a single dime to any democrat candidate on any level. So believe as you wish. Republican control both the House and Senate in Montana and I have supported the Republican party in every election here since I have been old enough to vote.
You are the typical voter in California, declaring you are defeated before you start and willingly being divided by the Democrats of your state. Clean up your own state first before ruining the rest of the west.
