3 ms·

There is a Constitutional right to "keep and bear arms," not to purchase them free from fees and taxes. You have no right to "keep and bear" something you have

There is a Constitutional right to "keep and bear arms," not to purchase them free from fees and taxes. You have no right to "keep and bear" something you have not yet purchased. Additionally, it's not "a" right, it's "the" right. The text of the Constitution recognizes a pre-existing right. "We look to ['the historical background'] because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008). Just like the pre-existing right of free speech was scoped so as not to provide immunity to suit for libel, the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms has never in its "historical background" been described as prohibiting purchase-time taxes. You're wholly inventing that aspect of the right; you'd have a stronger argument if we were talking about yearly personal property taxes levied on firearms.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
>There is a Constitutional right to "keep and bear arms," not to purchase them free from fees and taxes. You have no right to "keep and bear" something you have not yet purchased. >Additionally, it's not "a" right, it's "the" right. The text of the Constitution recognizes a pre-existing right. "We look to ['the historical background'] because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008). I generally agree with this. >the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms has never in its "historical background" been described as prohibiting purchase-time taxes. You're wholly inventing that aspect of the right; you'd have a stronger argument if we were talking about yearly personal property taxes levied on firearms. That's exactly what I'm talking about. The $200 NFA stamp that was intentionally supposed to be a hurdle for poor people back in the early 1900s. The $100 fee you need for any gun license in MA (other states have similiar) is a poll tax if there ever was one. Shall issue licensing in any real world implementation almost always passes the duck test for institutionalized discrimination.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago

>There is a Constitutional right to "keep and bear arms," not to purchase them free from fees and taxes. You have no right to "keep and bear" something you have not yet purchased. >Additionally, it's not "a" right, it's "the" right. The text of the Constitution recognizes a pre-existing right. "We look to ['the historical background'] because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008). I generally agree with this. >the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms has never in its "historical background" been described as prohibiting purchase-time taxes. You're wholly inventing that aspect of the right; you'd have a stronger argument if we were talking about yearly personal property taxes levied on firearms. That's exactly what I'm talking about. The $200 NFA stamp that was intentionally supposed to be a hurdle for poor people back in the early 1900s. The $100 fee you need for any gun license in MA (other states have similiar) is a poll tax if there ever was one. Shall issue licensing in any real world implementation almost always passes the duck test for institutionalized discrimination.