Constitution: "No tax on state exports" & NFA?

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

ctdonath

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
3,618
Location
Cumming GA
Regarding the NFA:

The Constitution states "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State".

As the NFA is justified as an exercise of the "interstate commerce" clause, thus directly (or per Raich, indirectly) involving/affecting exporting articles exported from the state of prior possession, doesn't the $200/$5 tax violate the "no tax shall be laid" limit on Congress?

One could claim that I'm not getting my NFA article interstate because it first goes to a dealer, but he is subject to the same tax, and exempt only because he pays a higher annual tax. A little shell game doesn't remove the problem.

In light of the noted Constitutional limit on Congress, how can they justify demanding the NFA tax when exercising NFA controls under interstate commerce regulation? Methinks Congress could leave the tracking, FFL involvement, and enforcement of NFA intact, but the transfer tax is impermissible.

Thoughts?
 
Not being intimately familiar with the rich case law language, I'd first guess that the word export legally is held to mean ship out of the country rather than trade amongst the several States.
 
The NFA (because it is an infringement) is unconstitutional due to the 2nd amendment, which overrides the interstate clause.

I think there were actually comments made by those who proposed it wondering if it would past muster for these very reasons.
 
Not being intimately familiar with the rich case law language, I'd first guess that the word export legally is held to mean ship out of the country rather than trade amongst the several States.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that is the case, since there was a problem with some states trying to get taxes paid on other states' exports to other states. It made an economic mess, and both this and the interstate commerce clause were aimed at protecting free trade between states (not for the regulation purposes it is used for now).
 
It's probably allowed because it is a federal tax that is applied equally to all states, and not each tax passing its own import/export tax.
 
As the NFA is justified as an exercise of the "interstate commerce" clause, thus directly (or per Raich, indirectly) involving/affecting exporting articles exported from the state of prior possession, doesn't the $200/$5 tax violate the "no tax shall be laid" limit on Congress?
Click to expand...

The NFA is not based on interstate commerce, it is a tax levied on a product, plain and simple. It was passed before the expansion if the ICC.
 
Under Article I, Section 10, Powers prohibited to the States, Clause 2 says: "No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress."

The NFA tax is not an import/export tax laid upon an item by the States. It is a tax laid upon an item by the Feds.

Within the context of Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, it is a lawful tax.

Further, since it does not directly tax the right in question (only some of the many impliments of that right), it has been presumed lawful in that regard also. Then there is the Pittman-Robertson Act (Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937) and the Dingell-Johnson Act (1951 - used for fish management), which essentially taxes all sporting equipment and licensing.

We haven't even mentioned all the various State taxation schemes... All lawful.
 
Then why...

The federal gov't passed the tax on full auto weapons in the 30's as a way yo restrict people from purchasing them. This went to court and the gov't won because they're allowed to lay a tax on sales and purchases. The specifially said that this wasn't an effort to restrict machine gunownership because, as they admitted, the gov't doesn't have that power.

Of course this was BS; $200 was a lot of money in the 30's during the Depression and it was several times the cost of the MG.

Fast forward to the mid-80's and they prohibit "civilian" purchase of newly manufactured full-auto guns. Where did this legal authority come from? That they didn't have in the 30's?
 
Fast forward to the mid-80's and they prohibit "civilian" purchase of newly manufactured full-auto guns. Where did this legal authority come from? That they didn't have in the 30's?
Click to expand...

Civilians aren't prohibited from making new machineguns. The BATF is prohibited from accepting the TAX money on newly made machineguns. You can technically MAKE the machinegun, you are just unable to register it. Again, it's a tax law. That's in part why the response to the question, "May an unlicensed person make a machinegun" is, "generally, no"
 
Civilians aren't prohibited from making new machineguns.
Click to expand...

WRONG.

The core law is 922(o):
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to—
(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.
Click to expand...
You make one, you possess it. That's illegal now.

If it was legal, there would be a very active "build your own machinegun!" community, and I'd have several. It's not, so there isn't, and I don't.
 
Nothing, unless they find out you have one.
Click to expand...

Please get off this thread.

I have a severe problem with people who suggest activities which are illegal and carry penalties upwards of 10 years in prison and $250,000 fines.

You will find the NFA community in general has a similar attitude.
 
slightly off-topic, but on my NY tax return form line 59 they have added ny sales and use tax. they are now telling all NY'ers that it is the consumers responsibility to pay for sales tax, and if you bought anything out of state (ie internet) they now require you to pay sales tax on all purchases brought into the state. this includes items i may have purchased in jersey and paid tax on in jersey, but brought into NY to use. they even go so far as to say that if you bought something in a neighboring county that may have had a lower sales tax, they want me to pay the difference in sales tax when i file my yearly taxes.
 
Yup. That's been law in NY for quite some time; they've just been cranking up enforcement slowly.

Interesting observation. Wonder if anyone will call 'em on it.
 
The NFA is no more a legal exercise of the taxation power than a poll tax or tax on abortions would be.

If a woman had to ask govt permission and pay a 200 dollar tax every time she wanted to get an abortion, would this be within Congress' power to tax? Why not? Because it infringes upon the exercise of a fundamental right you say?

The simple fact is that congress cannot use its enumerated powers to extinguish fundamental rights. It is only a matter of time before firearms ownership is included.
 
You go to jail for making an unregistered machinegun. What I'm saying is that it's a tax crime, not a gun crime (at least, at the federal level). You can MAKE the gun, but as soon as you make it, you posses it. The crime is not MAKING the gun (actual process), it's POSESSING the gun, without paying the tax. The machinegun "ban" is a result of the BATF being unable to accept new tax money for the purpose of "registering machineguns" or whatever they used the money for.

Everyone speaks of the "machinegun ban" as some sort of massive legislative action that is impossible to overturn. It's actually as "simple" as writing the line, "the BATF is reauthorized to accept tax money for the purposes of registering new and existing machineguns after month/day/2XXX" or something more flowery than that. It's a damn tax law.

Please everyone READ what I'm writing. I'm not advocating making machineguns illegally, I'm pointing out that the "ban" on them is ban on the gov't receiving taxes.
 
Fast forward to the mid-80's and they prohibit "civilian" purchase of newly manufactured full-auto guns. Where did this legal authority come from? That they didn't have in the 30's?
Click to expand...

Don't you know your Constitutional Law? Tsk, tsk. If the liberals say its so, then its law. If conservatives say its so, the law must be antiquated and of no importance.:what:
 
Prince Yamato, youre plain wrong. There are a whole bunch of cases from the late 80s where the ATF charged people with tax evasion and violating 922(o) and the court said that 922(o) extinguished the tax evasion crime. The ATF and the courts currently dont interpret 922(o)'s "authority of the united states" to include approved transfer forms with tax paid.

Requiring people to pay the tax would be 5th amendment self incrimination. That's the same reason that you can't go after felons for not registering firearms. Doing so would be confessing to being a felon in possession. Note that this is only true when there is no barrier between the group enforcing the felon in possession and the group enforcing the registration.

If you are caught with an unregistered machine gun, you CANNOT be charged with not paying the tax. You are charged with possession under 922(o).
 
Requiring people to pay the tax would be 5th amendment self incrimination
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. You are required to pay tax on income gained via illegal activities. IIRC, in certain cases that information is not allowed to be given to the justice department and used for prosecution, specifically so that the government can collect the taxes without infringing on people's 5th amendment rights.

I believe this was true of the NFA tax before 922(o) was passed. 922(o) simply makes possession of a post-86 manufactured machine gun illegal. If you have a pre-86 manufacture gun, I believe you have to pay the tax even if the possession is illegal.
 
Yes, getting caught with a pre-'86 MG means you can get nailed for not having paid the transfer tax.

A high court did at one point rule that requiring registration was a 5th Amendment violation, but it was reversed through some creativity that eludes my recollection at the moment. Google is your friend.
 
Read my post more carefully. I said that it doesnt violate the 5th amendment as long as there is some barrier (typically referred to as a "chinese wall") between the registration/tax authority and the criminal enforcement authority. Those chinese walls were erected in the face of decisions that struck down various registration laws as applied to felons.

This was especially ironic considering that the registration laws were meant to give cops/prosecutors a tool to go after clever felons that avoided being caught red handed at real crimes.

Also, you can't be prosecuted for illegal activities declared on your tax return. It is kept sooper sekrit. In theory at least. Though I imagine that they tip people off to keep an eye out for probable cause where you are concerned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
'34 NFA and US Const, Art I, Sec 9
Replies
4
Views
700
geekWithA.45
G
D
  • Locked
US v. Ardoin judgement (NFA related) question
Replies
5
Views
463
Graystar
G
S
  • Locked
Taking Down The NFA From The Inside...
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
ForeverArmed
F
2
  • Locked
Was the Congress Granted the Constitutional Authority to Regulate Firearms by tax
Replies
0
Views
385
2dogs
2
R
  • Locked
Constitutional Basis for Bans
2
Replies
27
Views
890
MGshaggy
M
Back
Top