The Alaskan
member
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2015
- Messages
- 477
Well since you seem to know something about this "decisional law," why don't you share that with us?
Because preparing a worthwhile response to the OP's question would take several hours of research. I'm aware that the law is out there, but I'd need to dig up cases and read them.The Alaskan said:Well since you seem to know something about this "decisional law," why don't you share that with us?
Unless you can support your ideas with something better than your imagination, there's no reason to pay any attention to them.The Alaskan said:It's also pretty easy to shoot down everyone else's ideas...
That's sort of the idea in the broadest terms, and the term usually used is "regulatory tax."barnbwt said:Is there a proper fancy legal-sounding name for "prohibitive tax," because some simple searching on such a basic concept is turning up a goose egg for me (at least as far as court cases/rulings). Only results are for pot stuff, which I guess answers the question, right? That a prohibitive tax is fully constitutional provided it does not clash with the bill of rights, even though the premise of such laws is solely to extend congress' reach beyond its enumerated grasp (which is why it took an amendment to make alcohol contraband, instead of simply 'taxing' the bejeezus out of it)?...
...Clearly, the First Amendment does not prohibit all regulation of the press. It is beyond dispute that the States and the Federal Government can subject newspapers to generally applicable economic regulations without creating constitutional problems. See, e.g., Citizens Publishing Co. v. United States, 394 U.S. 131, 139, 89 S.Ct. 927, 931, 22 L.Ed.2d 148 (1969) (antitrust laws); Lorain Journal Co. v. United States, 342 U.S. 143, 155-156, 72 S.Ct. 181, 187, 96 L.Ed. 162 (1951) (same); Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622, 71 S.Ct. 921, 95 L.Ed. 1233 (1951) (prohibition of door-to-door solicitation); Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186, 192-193, 66 S.Ct. 494, 497-98, 90 L.Ed. 614 (1946) (Fair Labor Standards Act); Mabee v. White Plains Publishing Co., 327 U.S. 178, 66 S.Ct. 511, 90 L.Ed. 607 (1946) (same); Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 6-7, 19-20, 65 S.Ct. 1416, 1418 1424, 89 L.Ed. 2013 (1945) (antitrust laws); Associated Press v. NLRB, 301 U.S. 103, 132-133, 57 S.Ct. 650, 656, 81 L.Ed. 953 (1937) (NLRA); see also Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 92 S.Ct. 2646, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972) (enforcement of subpoenas). ...
...Minnesota, however, has not chosen to apply its general sales and use tax to newspapers. Instead, it has created a special tax that applies only to certain publications protected by the First Amendment. Although the State argues now that the tax on paper and ink is part of the general scheme of taxation, the use tax provision, quoted in note 2, supra, is facially discriminatory, singling out publications for treatment that is, to our knowledge, unique in Minnesota tax law.
Minnesota's treatment of publications differs from that of other enterprises...
...A tax that burdens rights protected by the First Amendment cannot stand unless the burden is necessary to achieve an overriding governmental interest....
From what I recall of the cases, that can be a very difficult line of attack. Courts have found certain actions by a State pursuant to its police powers to impose an undue burden on interstate commerce and to therefore be invalid. On the other hand, courts have found other actions by a State pursuant to its police powers to be valid, even though those actions did in some way burden interstate commerce.barnbwt said:...Frank, how do you think an objection based on hindrance of insterstate commerce would stand up?...
Unless you can support your ideas with something better than your imagination, there's no reason to pay any attention to them
In this discussion your knowledge of American History and what you might thing you know about the Constitution is irrelevant. The question the OP asked was very specific:The Alaskan said:I didn't use my imagination. I used my knowledge of American History and the US Constitution to formulate my own interpretation and add just one of many possible positions on the issue...
....is there any legal defense on stopping excessively high taxes on guns and ammo?
Then do the research and report back. But speculation gets us nowhere.barnbwt said:...I'm sure there's case law somewhere for a legislature using tax power to intentionally destroy a disfavored industry or business that doesn't get lost in the 1st amendment weeds. I'd like to think that other businesses couldn't legally receive the same focused taxation as the Minneapolis newspapers, so long as they weren't publishing ...
That horse has long since left the barn. There will be regulation sustained by the courts of the rights protected by the Second Amendment. There can be no doubt of that. Even Heller held the door open.barnbwt said:"Clearly, the First Amendment does not prohibit all regulation of the press"
Do I even have to say that the language of the 2nd is just a little more forceful on this front than the first?
the question of a tax on guns or ammunition raises the issue of a regulation or taxation of a constitutionally protected right. But we also know that some limited regulation of constitutionally protected rights has been permitted by the courts. So we really need to look at any tax on guns or ammunition from that perspective as well.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...no-constitution-doesnt-give-governm/?page=allThe high bar is called strict scrutiny. It requires that the government demonstrate an articulated area of jurisdiction and a compelling state interest served by the least restrictive alternative before it can treat a person differently or uniquely because of his or her place of birth. A compelling state interest is one that is necessary to preserve life or the state’s existence, and it must be addressed using the least force and causing the least interference with personal liberty possible.
But this thread is not about the Seattle tax. The OP asked:Spooler41 said:Has anyone else read the actual preemption law for Washington? I....
Now go back and reread post#16 then let me know if this is not absolutely clear
as far as preempting any local firearms law that conflicts with state law.
...However, not every state has preemption laws.
So, is there any legal defense on stopping excessively high taxes on guns and ammo?