A way to restore our 2nd A. Rights?...

[Autolycus]

I am not a lawyer but I was thinking about something.

If a poll tax is illegal and preventing people from exercising their right to vote could having a $200 tax stamp be construed as the same thing towards the 2nd amendment?

And for those of us in IL where we need a FOID, or other states where you need to register and apply for a permit to purchase a gun, could it be the same thing? I was told that GA was sued by the NAACP for requiring people to have a State ID in order to vote. They said it was a poll tax. A poll tax was there to prevent people from voting and exercising their rights. The FOID is essentially the same thing.

Its really late and my mind is not thinking to well but I wanted some opinions.

 

[Michigander]

I think the argument would be that a $200 tax on an automatic firearm does not preclude you from obtaining other types of firearms without such a tax, hence you are still able to exercise your right.

Maybe this could be applied to taxes on ammunition?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

An approach similar to this was tried and lost some time ago (30+ years I think)... I would have to dig for the case to find the info or you might check the law library at http://www.guncite.com/

 

[The Drew]

a tax stamp isn't unconstitutional, however a ban on newly registerable auto recievers IS, as the result is to price them out of the reach of the average working slob and eventually kill the market.

If you want to fight the NFA start there...

 

[Graystar]

The judiciary of the federal government and of 48 states do not consider the private ownership of firearms to be a right. That is something that you would have to first establish before pursuing a suit based on the violation of that right.

 

[Crosshair]

Just wait until the US military adopts a new FA weapon that does not have any in the NFA registry. Cases chalenging the NFA until now have been stumped because you CAN technically get a FA M-16, just prepare to pay out the butt for it. If a gun is adopted but none for civilians exist, then it might be easier to get the MG ban thrown out.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

"I think the argument would be that a $200 tax on an automatic firearm does not preclude you from obtain(ing) other types of firearms without such a tax, hence you are still able to exercise your right."

While it's true a person can still exercise their right by buying some other type of gun, it is a matter of infringement, not that you can buy something else instead. Making a law that you can never turn right then saying you can still turn left does not mean your right to turn has not been infringed. Blocking ANY portion of a right is an infringement. It's the infringement that is unconstitutional and illegal.

Our right to keep and bear arms pertains to all arms - new, old, not yet invented, and no matter how the damn things work. Yes, we have the right to keep and bear any new arms that come along as well. We do not need to "add them to the list," as it were. We have access to them simply as a consequence of their invention.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. If that doesn't convince you to take a stand and protect your inalienable rights and freedoms, nothing will. If that doesn't convince you to maintain your personal sovereignty, you are already someone else's subject. If you don't secure your rights and freedoms to maintain your personal sovereignty now, it'll be too late to come to me for help when they come for you. I will already be dead because I had to stand alone. B.E.Wood

 

[politicalpolls.us]

The politician who proposes a $200 tax stamp on anything is signing his own political death warrant.

 

[beerslurpy]

For such a lawsuit to succeed, you need to have the 2nd amendment recognized as protecting an individual right to own military weaponry. If you cannot do that, you will get nowhere. Once you do it, this attack and a million others like it become pathetically simply to carry out.

I think most of the american people already agree with the view of this board that the 2nd is about an individual right to own whatever guns we want. The problem is that only recently have we begun to get access to the reagan era judges. Before that we were dealing with people who were raised and got their legal experience during a period when the New Deal was viewed very favorably.

I think we can get there, it will just take a long time.

 

[Standing Wolf]

For such a lawsuit to succeed, you need to have the 2nd amendment recognized as protecting an individual right to own military weaponry. If you cannot do that, you will get nowhere. Once you do it, this attack and a million others like it become pathetically simply to carry out.

That's a mighty large if.

 

[MudPuppy]

a tax stamp isn't unconstitutional

I completely disagree--to me, that's the very definition of infringement (a violation).

If a tax stamp isn't unconsitutional, then where does it stop and what are the defined limits?

"Sure, you can own a handgun--that'll be a One Million Dollar tax stamp, please."
(I know that would never happen--the "please" part, that is.)

The current restriction on new FA firearms is an even bigger slap in the face beyond the abuse of the constitution--it restricts these types to the RICH only. Despite all our propaganda and posturing, it comes down to that very simple fact.

"land of the free" and all. Bah.

EDIT--okay, I don't know what I was thinking when I said "an even bigger slap"--still, pretty frustrating for a law abiding citizen to be subjected to that type of blatant disregard to what we all hold so important.

 

[The Drew]

A tax stamp IS constitutional because congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, Collecting taxes is completely different from a gun ban. That is how the NFA passed constituional muster in the first place. It was strictly a taxation issue. Since then it has been amended to ban the registration of any new MG's. I believe that THIS is the unconstitutional part of the NFA.

Would I like to see the NFA go away? yes.

If a tax stamp is unconstitutional then so are fees for background checks, sales tax on a firearm, and special excise taxes on firearms and ammunition.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

To The Drew

There is a difference. Congress has many powers to tax, but the power to infringe upon the RKBA has been forbidden to them. A tax on an item touches that item(infringes upon). You can shoot your guns all day, but you may not shoot them at someone without just cause. Congress may govern commerce, but may not do so in a manner that infringes something they are not allowed to touch. The President may make, and the Senate ratify, a treaty. But, they cannot make a treaty that is beyond their authority. You've got the right to build yourself a house, but you cannot build it on your neighbor's property. Get the picture?

Woody

A law that says you cannot fire your gun in the middle of downtown unless in self defense is not unconstitutional. Laws that prohibit brandishing except in self defense or handling your gun in a threatening or unsafe manner would not be unconstitutional. Laws can be written that govern some of the uses of guns. No law can be written that infringes upon buying, keeping, storing, carrying, limiting caliber, limiting capacity, limiting quantity, limiting action, or any other limit that would infringe upon the keeping or bearing of arms. That is the truth and simple reality of the limits placed upon government by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. B.E.Wood

 

[Strings]

>For such a lawsuit to succeed, you need to have the 2nd amendment recognized as protecting an individual right to own military weaponry.<

I think you're looking for Miller, where the court ruled that a short-barreled shotgun wasn't covered by the Second Amendment because it wasn't a military weapon...

 

[Graystar]

but the power to infringe upon the RKBA has been forbidden to them.

That's true, but the judiciary has the power to say what this thing called the RKBA really means. And at the moment, they don't agree with you.

 

[antarti]

A tax stamp IS constitutional because congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, Collecting taxes is completely different from a gun ban. That is how the NFA passed constituional muster in the first place. It was strictly a taxation issue.

Isn't:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,

In article 1 Section 8??? Way before the 2nd Amendment?

Doesn't the 2nd Amendment effectively amend this to not apply to "arms", since that right is not to be infringed?

Edit to add: And how does "among" the several states get imputed to mean "inside the states themselves, and even inside my bedroom or garage".

Why do people with higher law educations seem unable to grasp the simple meanings here?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

So, Greystar, do we simply sit and take it?

You and I seem to know what it says. We understand. Surely they do, too. I do believe agenda has driven their(the Court's) "call". I, for one, will not simply accept their unconstitutional amendment of the Constitution with their redefinition of words and insertion of criteria not present nor implied in the Constitution. I'll not even converse in that context. Neither should any of the rest of us. Using their rhetoric is giving them a pass from the scrutiny of the Constitution.

Woody

"One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown...." George Washington, from his farewell address.

This may not be precisely the same thing, but it tends to have the same effect.

 

[Graystar]

That’s Graystar...

My understanding of the words of the Second Amendment is that it prohibits Congress from passing any law that would effectively disarm a state. I’m sure that’s quite different from what you believe.

 

[Strings]

Last time I checked, it was all kinds of scholars that were saying the 2A refered to a "collective right", as opposed to an "individual right". The USSC has NOT ruled on it in any way, shape, or form. So who knows how they'd rule? Notice that they seem pretty good at dodging such cases...

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Graystar

You wrote:
[blockquote]My understanding of the words of the Second Amendment is that it prohibits Congress from passing any law that would effectively disarm a state. I’m sure that’s quite different from what you believe.[/blockquote]

The states are specifically forbidden to keep troops and ships of war in time of peace without the consent of Congress. How could an amendment that directly addresses a "right of the people" be construed to protect a power specifically denied to the several states in the Constitution, Article I, Section 10, Clause (3), to wit:

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." (Bold emphasis mine.)

If what you say is true, the Second Amendment would have superseded this clause. It did not.

And why would the federal government not want to forbid the states from disarming the people if the federal government must rely on there being a well regulated militia for it to call upon, as it is a power of the federal government to call forth the militia as specified in Article I, Section 8, Clause (15), to wit:

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

The bottom line with these clauses from the Constitution, and the Second Amendment, is that the permanent military power in this nation rests solely with the people. Without forbidding state governments(at all levels), as well as the federal government, to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms, there would be no militia to call upon.

The Congress could unfund or not fund the military. It doesn't have to keep the Army and Navy(Air force, Marines, etc.). All Congress need do is not pass funding legislation. (We pulled out of Vietnam because Congress refused to fund it any further.) We the People are the only permanent military might in this nation. I believe you and anyone else who thinks any level or branch of government has the power to infringe upon any aspect of that might needs to reevaluate their position on this matter. Our might, our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, is the backbone of this country. It is the keel to this ship - our ship - in a sea of nations. Gnaw away at that keel, and we will surely sink as a nation and as a free people. A ship of fools we are not.

Our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing. They took steps to ensure we would never be disarmed, and be ever ready(well regulated) to defend the nation. It is ludicrous to believe they would overlook forbidding the states to disarm us! And, so that there would be no misinterpretation or misconstrual of the intent of our Founding Fathers, there are no limits placed upon our our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. There is not one qualifier in the Amendment.

Woody

You all need to remember where the real middle is. It is the Constitution. The Constitution is the biggest compromise - the best compromise - ever written. It is where distribution of power and security of the common good meets with the protection of rights, freedom, and personal sovereignty. B.E.Wood

 

[Graystar]

The states are specifically forbidden to keep troops and ships of war in time of peace without the consent of Congress. How could an amendment that directly addresses a "right of the people" be construed to protect a power specifically denied to the several states in the Constitution, Article I, Section 10, Clause (3), to wit:

You need to review the definitions of troops vs. militia. You don't "keep" a militia. Art. 1 sec. 10(3) doesn't apply.

No state except NY keeps ships of war. I believe NY is the only state with Congressional approval to keep a naval militia.

It is ludicrous to believe they would overlook forbidding the states to disarm us!

You're confusing the creation of the federal government with the creation of states. When the Constitution was being draft, the thirteen colonies already existed and had their own constitutions and laws. There was no need to protect the people from their state governments as those constitutions already provided that protection. This is what the Supreme Court's Cruikshank ruling says. The concept of a state disarming its people or doing anything else to its people was simply not a consideration.

Our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing.

Not really. The US Constitution is actually a huge compromise that nobody liked. Give it to any individual Founding Father and it would be very different. They were highly intelligent, but that doesn't mean you can perform brain surgery without training and experience.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Graystar

Uh Uh Uhh! You've taken me out of context, and it is a context you initially set. You said "disarm a state" and said nothing about troops or the militia. Article I, Section 8, Clause (3), does indeed effectively disarm the states. The Second Amendment protects THE PEOPLE from being disarmed. "...,the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It can't be more plain than that! The states are no more different than the federal government. If the states need to suppress an invasion, they must call upon their militia same as the federal government.

While it is true that the states existed before the Constitution and the federal government, the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms existed before the Constitution, the federal government, and the states. The RKBA is spoken of in that context. All our rights are spoken of in that context. None of our rights were created by the Constitution or any of the several states' constitutions. The Second Amendment protects that right across the board. The Supremacy Clause makes the Second Amendment superior to anything in any state constitution. The judges in every state are bound by that and must take an oath to support the Constitution.(Article VI)

Now, on to Cruikshank. In Cruikshank the SCOTUS said, "The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.(and does not bind the states)" (italics mine.) SCOTUS has gotten this wrong. Nowhere in the Second Amendment does it say that the said Second Amendment applies to the federal government alone. The statement in red I italicized refers to previous decisions and the SCOTUS in this instance accepted that statement carte blanc.

The logic is simple here. How can anyone say that the only source of tyranny would come on the federal level? It is patently and provably FALSE! The tyranny the slaves lived under - pardon me; existed under - was at the STATE level! Don't anyone give me the argument that the slaves were not considered to be people, either. Sodamn Hinsane didn't consider the Kurds as people. Sodamn Hinsane was a tyrant. Ipso facto! In my opinion, the Cruikshank decision purposely avoided the application of the Second Amendment to the states because, in 1875, the SCOTUS didn't have the guts to force the states to adhere to the Constitution.

The SCOTUS contradicted itself in Cruikshank, too. It stated that the rights enumerated in the Constitution are preexisting to the Constitution but ignored the fact that those same rights are preexisting to the states as well! The illogic of this boggles my mind. How could the founding fathers have recognized the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, placed protection of it in the Constitution, and done so only as an academic exercise? Every citizen of this country is a citizen of a state. It is pure fallacy to claim a preexisting right, protected by the Constitution for the security of the people, cannot be protected from infringement by the states - by that same Constitution that all states agreed to adhere to when they signed on, and are required to adhere to by the Supremacy Clause.

I repeat my statement that our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing. Your implication that they were untrained and inexperienced is balderdash and smacks of arrogance. And, as for that "compromise" you think was so unpopular, it has certainly found universal acceptance by each and every state in this union. It is true that the Constitution would have taken many different forms had the Founding Fathers each come up with their own version. But, what we do have is the culmination of all of them putting their heads together. They knew the needs of a free society. They had the experience of living under a tyranny. They truly developed the best compromise ever written. It is where distribution of power and security of the common good meets with the protection of rights, freedom, and personal sovereignty.

You got a better one? Let's see it!

Woody

PS: I must retract my statement implying you understood what the Second Amendment said. And, I'll ask you to point out in the Constitution where you believe the Court has been granted the power to decide what the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, or anything else in the Constitution, means.