Illinois Supreme Court rules Cook County gun, ammunition taxes unconstitutional

[Aim1]

This is good news.


https://chicago.suntimes.com/politi...llinois-state-supreme-court-theis-preckwinkle

 

[Bfh_auto]

We are finally getting a few good pieces of news for our friends in blue states lately.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Cook County taxes on guns and ammo burden the law abiding.

The black market does not pay taxes so the Cook County taxes only burden the law abiding.

 

[Aim1]

Crazily the courts reasoning mostly for saying it was illegal was that the proceeds from the taxes weren't going to anti-violence stuff......so apparently if they changed that the taxes would be legal.


Yikes.

 

[Speedo66]

Regardless, that's a huge decision.

 

[Hooda Thunkit]

So, the ISC states that the tax is unconstitutional only because the court disagrees with how the proceeds are used.

The tax itself is not, just the use of the money generated.

Although the court seems to think the tax cannot be put in the general fund, it could apparently be used for certain things.

I'm not seeing a win here.

 

[TomJ]

I had a conversation with a manager at the Cabelas in Hoffman Estates, IL a while back. He said that tax hurt their location significantly as customers went elsewhere to buy ammo, especially in bulk. I believe the tax added $50 to the cost of a case of ammo. Hopefully the county won't find a way around this ruling.

 

[230RN]

I guess it's a win in the sense of "it's not a loss," and in terms of the language used.

Even if it's not a great legal precedent, it's a positive PR "impact."

And dare I say it looks like some people in the governing strata are finally learning the English language?

No, I dare not.

Terry, 230RN

 

[Johnm1]

This is one where I’d like to read the actual ruling. The text of the article indicates:

“That the taxes violate the constitution’s uniformity clause and “impose a burden on the exercise of a fundamental right protected by the second amendment.”

So somewhere somebody derived that the ruling ruled that the tax violated both the uniformity clause and the fundamental right protected by the 2nd amendment. What the pundits or interviewees said is irrelevant.

I suspect that the Illinois Uniformity Clause might prohibit targeted taxes to supply the general fund or some such. Someone here once said ‘words have meaning’. In this case we’d need to see what they actually said.

I’ll try to see if I can find it tonight when I get home from work.

 

[230RN]

*
“That the taxes violate the constitution’s uniformity clause and “impose a burden on the exercise of a fundamental right protected by the second amendment.”

That;'s the "language" to which I was referring.

Note the non-use of the word "infringement." I guess "burden" will do for now.

But Yay! nevertheless.

I sometimes wish they're used the term "abridging"" as in the First Amendment: "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I await your close reading of the decision and interpretation of the "and."

Terry, 230RN

 

[BobCat]

The ruling is at https://s3.amazonaws.com/jnswire/jn.../cookcounty_gun_taxes_il_supreme_10-21-21.pdf

On page 8 they say:

"We agree that the ordinances impose a burden on the exercise of a fundamental
right protected by the second amendment. At its core, the second amendment
protects the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense in
the home. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 635 (2008). In McDonald
v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 778 (2010), the United States Supreme Court
stated that “it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment
counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary
to our system of ordered liberty.” See also Johnson v. Department of State Police,
2020 IL 124213, ¶ 37 (“the second amendment right recognized in Heller is a
personal liberty guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the fourteenth
amendment” (citing McDonald, 561 U.S. at 791)) "

I hope that's short enough quote to be "fair use".

 

[Johnm1]

That;'s the "language" to which I was referring.

My response was more towards the comment below and the article's quotation of others that seemed to indicate that the ruling was only for how the money was used. I don't think it says that. Not picking on you @Hooda Thunkit , just how I read the text of the article and now a preliminary reading of the ruling. Though I now see that the terminology used in the ruling (thanks @BobCat ) is less than forceful. I still need to understand the Uniformity Clause to come to a real conclusion. That might be harder to come by.

The tax itself is not, just the use of the money generated.

Thanks for the reply! I see where you are coming from.

 

[Poper]

This is one where I’d like to read the actual ruling. The text of the article indicates:

“That the taxes violate the constitution’s uniformity clause and “impose a burden on the exercise of a fundamental right protected by the second amendment.”

So somewhere somebody derived that the ruling ruled that the tax violated both the uniformity clause and the fundamental right protected by the 2nd amendment. What the pundits or interviewees said is irrelevant.

I suspect that the Illinois Uniformity Clause might prohibit targeted taxes to supply the general fund or some such. Someone here once said ‘words have meaning’. In this case we’d need to see what they actually said.

I’ll try to see if I can find it tonight when I get home from work.

Well, to quote an infamous former lawyer: "It depends on what the meaning of the word is is."

 

[BobCat]

Johnm1 - full disclosure, someone pointed me to that ruling, I didn't find it on my own.

I just think that the unanimity of the opinion, along with explicit references to the Second Amendment and to Heller and so forth, suggests that the court is not simply looking to have the County re-write so the tax money is targeted.

 

[Johnm1]

suggests that the court is not simply looking to have the County re-write so the tax money is targeted

I agree. I also agree with @230RN 's position that the reference to the 2nd amendment is certainly not as forceful as one might desire. Had this been an infringement of say a free speech or search and seizure issue, the terminology would almost certainly have been 'stronger'.

 

[Deanimator]

Anything that throws a monkey wrench into their agenda is a good thing.

 

[lilguy]

Could this decision be used to challenge the FOID card fee? Also, can one ask for a refund of the unconstitutional tax paid on a gun purchase and have any hope of collecting it?

 

[Waveski]

From the ruling:

At its core, the second amendment
protects the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense in
the home.

Since when is the 2nd amendment right to bear arms restricted to "in the home" ?

 

[230RN]

There is a Constitutional issue on Colorado's ballot this year which is related to the Cook County decision. Colorado's Amendment 78 would require that State Agencies spend "custodial money" according to State allocation, as opposed to the individual Departments spending it directly as Departmental income.

I'm kind of ambivalent on it.

On the one hand, if County Officials (Sheriffs) won't be able to control the use of carry permit fees as "Departmental Income," they might be less "against" Constitutional Carry. This is a personal "pro" for the issue. (This has been proposed as a reason many Sheriff's Departments across the country are against Constitutional Carry.)

On the other hand, I agree with the "con" discussion in the Voting Manual for this year. In part: "The measure adds unnecessary and expensive bureaucracy and risks significant unintended consequences."

What to do, what to do?

Terry, 230RN

 

[BobCat]

Since when is the 2nd amendment right to bear arms restricted to "in the home" ?

I did not write that line about "in the home", it was in paragraph of the court's ruling.that I quoted.

 

[rust collector]

I too found it striking that the right to bear arms was restricted to "in the home". I don't recall that from the Heller case, so I guess I need to review it.
More disappointing, however, was the court's basing the reversal upon one of the flimsier aspects of the case and in the process a. avoiding the infringement issue altogether and b. prescribing the steps that could be taken to avoid this problem in the future. Once again, core issues were avoided by 5 of the 7 members of the court (the PJ "took no part" in the deliberation for reasons not stated). The special concurrence, one justice out of seven, noted these issues very well.

 

[weeniewawa]

They should be forced to refund all taxes collected in past years too, plus interest because you know you would have to pay interest if you owed them any money

 

[Topos]

This intelligent legal thinking naturally extends to arguing that the $200.00 Tax Stamp on suppressors which
protect hearing is a crypto 'Jim Crow pol tax'. The background check on a suppressor should be made at the same time as when a firearm
background check is made a gun dealer. On another site some one posted the reasoning why the NFA tax
on suppressors is discriminatory and a remnant of a 1930s 'racist tax' which only 'rich' can pay, denying a home owner of any
persuasion from adding the hearing safety feature on their firearm and in turn allowing them to have added control.

 

[Waveski]

I did not write that line about "in the home", it was in paragraph of the court's ruling.that I quoted.

Yes , I predicated that quotation with “from the ruling”. I probably should have cut and pasted , sorry for the confusion.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I too found it striking that the right to bear arms was restricted to "in the home". I don't recall that from the Heller case, so I guess I need to review it.

That does come directly from Heller. Justice Scalia wrote something to the effect that the "core right" protected by the 2A is self-defense in the home.

BUT ... the question before the court in Heller was the right to maintain an operable firearm in the home. The Supreme Court tends to rule narrowly, so the Heller ruling only addressed the RKBA in the home. The problem is that anti-gun lower courts now like to claim that "Heller says" the RKBA only applies in the home -- which is not at all what Heller said.