OK to work for $5/hr in a tuna factory for Pelosi's donor? SURE..!
$1,000 tax on hand-guns? SURE..!
Posted on 04/18/2016 11:03:16 AM PDT by C19fan
The administration of Gov. Ralph DLG Torres defended the CNMI’s new gun control laws on Friday as a law that could be “a role model” for other U.S. states and jurisdictions facing seemingly uncontrolled and continued gun violence.
The administration was responding to queries regarding its position on recent reports that the a legal challenge to the new law, Public law 19-42, was likely, particularly over a provision that asseses a $1,000 excise tax on pistols.
(Excerpt) Read more at saipantribune.com ...
OK to work for $5/hr in a tuna factory for Pelosi's donor? SURE..!
$1,000 tax on hand-guns? SURE..!
Ralph Torres is obviously a gun grabbing ahole, and now he wants “other” U.S. states to tax gun owners $1,000 per firearm?
‘eff him. And someone should remind him that the Marianas are not a state.
So what is the rule on territories? Are they under our constitution or are the self-governed?
unconstitutional on its face
... even the most reluctant, leftist, statist courts will have no choice but to overturn it
(where do these idiots come from, is it something in the water or is it secret government ‘chem trails’ or maybe an alien mind-bending ray from Planet Nemesis, too many chemical-laced fast food burgers, or just a massive overflow from the state mental hospital...?)
The criminals are all scared and wondering how they will pay the excise tax.
Now the illegal gun sales there will B O O M !
The obfuscation of using N Mariana Islands is really just a diversion that Guam, one of its constituents, is the real source of the overall GDP of “the islands” (based on the three primary US Military Expenditures there.)
In other words. The Executive Administration has a lot of “pull” and influence there.
It’s the thugs who need to be controlled in any jurisdiction which is facing uncontrolled and continued violence.
The War on poor folks continues.
someone should remind the governor that if Guam can tip over and sink, so can the northern Maraianas Islands
(with a tip of the Halto Hat to Congressman Hank Johnson, geophysicist extraordinare)
The law discriminates against the poor.
Which candidate would fight this?
Which candidate would know how to fight this and on what grounds?
“(where do these idiots come from, is it something in the water or is it secret government ‘chem trails’ or maybe an alien mind-bending ray from Planet Nemesis, too many chemical-laced fast food burgers, or just a massive overflow from the state mental hospital...?)”
It’s not just the gun control liberals who try this stunt. Here in Alabama, several jurisdictions try to impose huge taxes on XXX rated movie rentals. They knew they couldn’t ban them so they decided to try to effectively ban them through taxation. Thrown out of court multiple times. A tax must have as it’s purpose gathering revenue. A tax so burdensome as to effectively ban an activity, raises no revenue.
he looks brilliant
he’s probably afraid that someone might fire a shotgun into the ground. That would poke a hole in his little island and it would then sink to the bottom of the ocean, prematurely ending his ‘governorship’
he has much to be concerned with
/s
why not a 10k surcharge on getting an abortion.. the results would be similar - the rich benefit whilst the poor are priced out/
They are under the constitution, but not entirely under the amendments to the constitution. I do not remember the reference for the base ruling that effectively says that the bill of rights does not entirely apply to territories (including the District of Columbia) but a base 1st or 2nd amendment challenge does not function the same in the territories. That said, the court was exceedingly clear to the Northern Mariana's administration, and I'm sure will be very welcoming of any challenge to this newest law. Which will, like the previous ruling, be a win for gun owners and rights.
>A gov’t cannot tax away a constitutional right
What?! You think they care about a Constitution?
They’ve already infringed: blocking a host of weapons (auto’s, ‘Sat. Night specials’), ‘cop killer’ ammo, silencers, ‘stamp tax’, etc.
If THOSE aren’t unconstitutional, why not another $1k excise tax? What makes THAT so ‘blatant’, but not the rest?
I wouldn't be so sure. The $200 tax stamp on short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, suppressors, and full automatic machine guns has never been successfully overturned in a court.
When the National Firearms Act was passed in 1934, a $200 tax then is about the same as a $1000 tax today.
its amazing how dead our constitutional rights are
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.