Posted on 07/02/2012 11:28:28 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45
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. One possibility that should generate grave concern is that the Federal government could use to the tax code to undermine the Supreme Court's landmark decisions affirming Second Amendment rights in Heller v. D.C. and McDonald v. Chicago. This is not a new idea; it is an old one. The New York Times reported in 1993 that the late Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan (D-NY) proposed adding a 10,000% Federal tax to 9mm handgun ammunition as part of "HillaryCare." Yes, you read that correctly; it is not a typo. Ten thousand percent. Did John Roberts just open the door for a future Democratic Congress to actually enact such a tax as part of ObamaCare? Of course, like most left-wing Democratic proposals, the truly rich would be unaffected. The goal of the gun-controllers has never been total disarmament, just the disarmament of the common man. The rich will always have a loophole, a political connection, or be able to hire private armed security firms. A truly wealthy person -- say, a Warren Buffett -- could easily pay a 10,000 per cent tax on a box of handgun ammunition, and it would be an absolute bargain if he ever had to use it to save his life. But most people would probably not be able to afford it -- and they'd just have to submit to the will of the armed criminal who stole his ammunition or purchased it on the black market without paying the tax.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I wish several dozen Democrats WOULD PROPOSE this....it’ll make for easy Republican pickups next election. :)
The Feds already require a $200 BATF Tax Stamp to buy an automatic weapon. Nothing about raising revenue about this...it is pure and simple a behavior modification ruse to find out who owns machine guns. And this was passed during in the 1930’s and never challenged because they called it a tax. What’s the difference?
Now they can tax you for NOT buying a gun.
I wonder if we will see another spike in gun and ammo sales.
I remember that clunker from Moynihan, along with anything over 500 rounds is an arsenal.
500 rounds is a good day at the range!
Moynihan really started drinking the Kool Aid after 1990. Leftist dementia?
Bring it on!
We have already seen doctors asking their patients if they own any firearms. Watch what happens under collectivist deathcare.
The ruling means you can force people to buy a gun and ammo or pay a tax.
L
Actually, it was challenged; Miller vs. US.
Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, nobody showed up to argue the "Miller" side.
I don’t know why not. In 09 the tax on loose cigarette tobacco rose by 2300%.
As far as I’m concerned we should pass all the taxes imposed directly on to a consumer paid sales tax at the point of retail sale. After all, the consumer is already paying all the taxes imposed on the manufacturers anyway. Might as well let the consumer see the taxes they’re paying all the way down the line.
Or... abortions, newspapers, movies, porn, college tuition, ect.
Of course, we can provide waivers to who we see fit, just like Obama does.
The air has the feeling of 1859 to it.
I will add the passage of this act was said to be authorized under the the Commerce Clause because the feds could find no other way under the constitution that would give them the power to regulate arms. This was precluded by the second amendment and in NO WAY does the type of arm have anything to do with this absolute right. Machine guns ARE protected under the second amendment. The government has been violating the constitution the entire time.
We need to repeal the Commerce Clause completely. It's not needed and has really never been needed to protect the states even as originally intended. The inclusion of Commerce Clause is the single biggest mistake made by the framers of the Constitution. Removing the CC will almost certainly need to be done through a Constitutional Convention.
I don’t care what doctors ask, as long as they are mandated to do so, and I’m not mandated to answer.
But they and we will be.
I’m no lawyer....but I think the decision was narrowly determined that a NON-MILITARY firearm could be regulated....in this case a sawed off shotgun.....but my point was that the TAX was never challenged on the basis of it being a tax. But I could be wrong.
But they and I will be.
If that was the point you’re trying to make, there’s nothing there I can argue against.
Then, it would be time to bring back the bow and the sword.
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.