Can Government Now Tax Handgun Ammunition 10,000%?

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.

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.

That was the narrow decision, but there was no testimony on the lower court level about the firearm in question having any "utility as an arm that could aid the militia in its duties" - and hence the desired result was returned. Nor was there any evidence (i.e. "judicial notice") presented on the Supreme Court level, because Miller was not represented (having been murdered while the case wound its way through the courts).

That was as made-up of a result as the Obamacare case - the 2nd Amendment references "arms" and not "militia-quality arms" or any other qualifier. In point of fact, there were military veterans on the Court, and they knew very well that short-barreled shotguns (A.K.A. "trench-brooms") were used extensively by the Army and Marines in WW1. The Court was as full of lying, disingenous, corrupt Constitution-shredders (but I repeat myself) as it is right now.

FYI, were the Miller case to be heard now, there'd be reams of evidence that FULL AUTG firearms (as well as short-barreled shotties) had excellent utility, such that the entire 1934 NFA would get tossed out on its arse...if we had an honest Court. Since we don't, it'll stay on the books as law. Whether people will choose to obey the dictates of a corrupt judiciary that is playing fig-leaf for a corrupt legislature and a corrupt executive is another matter altogether.

Not at all rhetorical. How many people would be fine with a tax on cigarettes of 10,000%?

It goes to the elitist mindset. They can afford insanely high prices for mundane products, and they enjoy them far more if the “hoi polloi” cannot afford them.

Buying a $400 pair of sunglasses for the label, though they are identical to a $15 pair at Walgreens, is somewhat frustrating to them. They would much prefer that the price of all sunglasses be raised to the point where only the wealthy can afford them.

If the price of cigarettes was indeed raised so high, you can bet that all the self-appointed elites would be chain smokers, to show their superiority.

The liberal elitist Bloomberg surrounds himself with a phalanx of heavily armed bodyguards, yet he still wants to prevent anyone else from having guns. Were he successful in getting rid of guns, his mansion would probably become an armory, so he could show off his superiority.

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.