I mean "preventing folks from voting" is, at least in normal times, assuming normal methods, clearly on the side of not legal, undesirable, and against the law.

I mean "preventing folks from voting" is, at least in normal times, assuming normal methods, clearly on the side of not legal, undesirable, and against the law. Meanwhile, "preventing people from owning machine guns" is widely accepted as legal, at least if they're made after a specific date. I agree that there's probably not a strong reason to assume that moving modern manufacture machine guns to a tax stamp regime with a huge tax wouldn't trigger some kind of litigation, but that seems mostly like a tangent. (And I think by default you'd assume there's no reason for the court to seconds guess the tax level of a tax without questioning the current tax stamp regime too.)