7 ms·
This is unconstitutional and will be struck down as such.
by agensaequivocum 3y ago
This is unconstitutional and will be struck down as such.
- bandyaboot 3y agoWhat makes it unconstitutional? Edit: to the person that asked what makes poll taxes unconstitutional…that would be the amendment to the constitution that literally makes it unconstitutional.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- agensaequivocum 3y agoIt's a constitutionally recognized inalienable right. Try taxing every social media post and news paper article and see how that goes.
- RoyalHenOil 3y agoI have never heard of any federal court ruling the way you claim they will. There are MANY rights we have (to own property, to work, to access necessities to live, etc.) that are nonetheless taxed.
- agensaequivocum 3y agoProperty seems to be a special case. There has always been this taxation in America. It was never understood otherwise. If by working you mean income taxes. Well they had to pass an amendment to allow it. Again, the question of a arms sold in commerce being subject to a general sales tax is different than what this is. Which is a excise tax aimed at arms because the California legislature and governor hate our freedoms and are throwing shit at the wall to restrict, make acquisition and possession as difficult as possible to people from even trying.
- bandyaboot 3y agoSo why have existing taxes on guns and ammunition not been struck down?
- agensaequivocum 3y agoBecause someone needs to challenge the law and pre-Bruen court acted like the 2A didn't exist.
- bandyaboot 3y agoI see. We’re just waiting on a case to be brought before a True Scotsman.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago> pre-Bruen court acted like the 2A didn't exist. You mean, before Bruen the court acted like that first clause of the 2A was more than just flavor text.
- agensaequivocum 3y agoFind me a gun control law the 9th circuit didn't consider too far. I'll wait. I refer you to this thread[1] of dozens of sources that show the only pre-20th century view is the individual right view consistent with Heller, McDonald, and Bruen. [1]https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1645290263299117056 https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1645290263299117056
- Acrobatic_Road 3y agoBecause they don't exist, other than the Pittman-Robertson Act. And nobody has ever challenged that act because the tax proceeds go to conservation, which hunters appreciate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_Restoration_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Fede...
- rbetts 3y agoNewspapers are taxed, though? As are megaphones, audio equipment, printers, …
- agensaequivocum 3y agoThey fall under general sales tax not a specific punitive tax for what they are.
- Paul-Craft 3y agoSugary drinks are taxed in many California cities, for no other reason than they contain sugar. Is that also unconstitutional by your logic?
- riku_iki 3y agoI assume taxing news paper may be considered as limiting freedom of speech.
- agensaequivocum 3y agoIs a sugary drink a constitutionally enumerated inalienable right?
- defrost 3y agoand if so is sugar specifically singled out to be well regulated?
- agensaequivocum 3y agoIt's not and "well regulated" is not the operative part of the amendment. "Shall not be infringed" is.
- defrost 3y agoIt's all part of the text .. leaving out "well regulated (ie. trained responsible locals that can act as a unit, not village idiots with 3 DUI's and a couple of domestic violence charges) is 'infringing' on that right to have well drilled, well outfitted, well regulated, armed people. You're just picking out the bits you like.
- keep_reading 3y agoMoney is speech. Therefore money should not be taxed. Checkmate liberals
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- meristohm 3y agoThe wording (obtuse, to me) of the second amendment to the United States constitution: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[0] M-W Definition of infringe: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another My questions: To what degree is it okay to increase profit (see list below) from the sale of firearms? 1) by the manufacturer? 2) by the government(s) that bears a burden of firearm misuse? 3) by the government(s) that provides for the infrastructure to make and distribute firearms? [0] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/
- pstuart 3y agoAnd what does "well regulated militia" mean?
- ecshafer 3y agoWell regulated means armed and maintained. Militia means informal, non state sanctioned people with arms.
- pstuart 3y agoA take that seems to go deeper in a reasonable manner: https://www.heritage.org/the-essential-second-amendment/the-well-regulated-militia https://www.heritage.org/the-essential-second-amendment/the-...
- pauldenton 3y agohttps://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8 https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8
- water9 3y agoIt certainly doesn’t mean well, regulated as in restricted, because nobody’s gonna say oh no, we’re being invaded thank God we have so many restrictions limiting the size of our weaponry to protect ourselves, the security of the state will definitely be preserved because we’re so well restricted, I mean regulated
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Daishiman 3y agoThere's nothing about it that makes it unconstitutional.