• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Why do we pay taxes on firearms and licenses needed to obtain them?

Joined
Aug 2, 2008
Messages
5,239
Likes
742
Location
Middletown, RI
Feedback: 3 / 0 / 0
I brought up the Murdock vs Penn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murdock_v._Pennsylvania) where the Supreme Court ruled . The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the federal constitution. viz., The state cannot and does not have the power to license, nor tax, a Right guaranteed to the people.

That lead to the question of the other rights, in particular the 2nd.

Since the Heller decision, the Supreme Court has also ruled that it is an individual right and other cases have ruled that it extends beyond the home.

Am I making to much sense here an applying logic in determining that the state shouldn't be charging sales tax when you purchase a firearm, and that the state shouldn't be charging a fee for obtaining a LTC as that is what Murdock was doing, getting a license to exercise his right.
 
Many states (not MA) tax the sale of newspapers, magazines, food, cheap clothing.
They don't tax the use or possession of them, as far as I know.

Time to manufacture our own personal guns! :)
 
charging tax for a gun isn't taxing your right, its taxing the device your right lets you own.
 
You stay out of this...we're trying to have a one sided argument here. :)

Seriously good points brought up though...next time i buy a gun i'm going to demand I not pay taxes on it...then i'll handcuff myself to the nearest radiator and drink beer from my govt. Issued camelback hydration system until the looney bin sends a limo out to pick me up.

Many states (not MA) tax the sale of newspapers, magazines, food, cheap clothing.
They don't tax the use or possession of them, as far as I know.

Time to manufacture our own personal guns! :)
 
charging tax for a gun isn't taxing your right, its taxing the device your right lets you own.

What about paying a fee to obtain an LTC or an LTC for that matter to be allowed the right "to bear arms"?

How is it different in the Murdock case whereas the city claimed that this meant that they were being sold and a license was required. At question was whether the licensing requirement constituted a tax on Murdock's religious exercise.

Justice William O. Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court. The court held that the ordinance was an unconstitutional tax on the Jehovah's Witnesses' right to freely exercise their religion. Wouldn't being required to obtain an LTC to bear arms mean to a tax on people to freely exercise the 2nd amendment?

The decision went on to explicitly state "A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution." However, does this mean that amendments in the Bill or Rights are taxable and only the Constitution exempt?
 
I'm still trying figure out why we pay tax to receive the money we earn, and then pay tax when we spend the same money.
 
The 11% excise tax on firearms (Pittman Robertson Act of 1937) is assessed at the manufacturer level. It was requested by sportmen way back when & is used for Wildlife Conservation, buying land, teaching Hunter Safety, etc. It has been very successful at restoring wildlife to better than they were when the Pilgrims landed.
http://www.ihea.com/news-and-events/news/ihea-news-releases/256-hunting-qsafe-and-getting-safer
https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=core&id=0fca20b80b1a75a33236fafe27c9fb4b
 
The big problem with MA and how it is currently setup is that one cannot exercise their right without being taxed. I see that as a good case but it will require an out of stated who is moving in with firearms suing the state demanding equal P&I be recognized. I'd love to see a Fed court pull the same thing on MA as they did on Chicago.

Florida gun groups are pushing for constitutional carry as right now there is only 1 taxed way to carry.
 
Last edited:
What about paying a fee to obtain an LTC or an LTC for that matter to be allowed the right "to bear arms"?

How is it different in the Murdock case whereas the city claimed that this meant that they were being sold and a license was required. At question was whether the licensing requirement constituted a tax on Murdock's religious exercise.

Justice William O. Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court. The court held that the ordinance was an unconstitutional tax on the Jehovah's Witnesses' right to freely exercise their religion. Wouldn't being required to obtain an LTC to bear arms mean to a tax on people to freely exercise the 2nd amendment?

The decision went on to explicitly state "A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution." However, does this mean that amendments in the Bill or Rights are taxable and only the Constitution exempt?

In MA that would not just be to bear but to keep.
 
Tennessee holds the belief that this case precedent has strong legs, and used it a few months ago to back the right to open carry without a license. I would love to see someone use it in the same way to feed the Beacon Hill a very large shit sandwich. Imagine the wonderful chaos.
 
Attorney Daving Jensen litigated the excessive NYC pistol permits fees in federal court. He lost, and SCOTUS denied cert.
 
Attorney Daving Jensen litigated the excessive NYC pistol permits fees in federal court. He lost, and SCOTUS denied cert.

[thinking] It appears that sooner or later, the SCOTUS is going to be compelled to do something, the longer the wait, the bigger the ramification on their decision.
 
Back
Top Bottom