Pittman Roberston Excise Tax on Guns & Ammunition Unconstitutional?

[RMc]

How about this issue:

The Pittman-Robertson Excise Taxes, long supported by firearms manufacturers and gun rights organizations, may represent a conflict of interest in light of the Heller Decision.

The Heller Decision opens the door to lawsuits challenging special firearms and ammunition taxes on 2nd Amendment grounds - even those taxes that benefit hunting and shooting sports!

The question of special taxes - even small ones - on any aspect of a constitutionally protected right was settled by the Supreme Court 25 years ago in a Freedom of the Press, 1st Amendment challenge.

In Minneapolis Star v Minnesota ,(1983), SCOTUS ruled that raw newsprint (paper) cannot be subject to any special taxes, regardless of how minimal the tax, without violating the the 1st Amendment's protection of the Press. By this standard, the Heller decision could lead to the elimination special taxes placed only on guns and ammunition as a violation of 2nd Amendment protections.

The Pittman-Robertson Act (Section 4181), federal excise taxes on firearms and ammunition could be eliminated. Since 1937, these taxes have pumped over $5 billion into conservation, wildlife management and hunter safety programs. "In 2007, the firearms and ammunition industry contributed a total of $303.2 million in excise taxes, up 21.2 percent from the $250.1 million in 2006." (NSSF press release June 23, 2008)

It is, however, highly unlikely the firearms industry would initiate any constitutional challenge to these excise taxes - even if "...the Second Amendment is not about duck hunting."

Consider again:

In Minneapolis Star v Minnesota, the Supreme Court concluded:
"...differential taxation that selectively burdens the exercise of a fundamental right is impermissable."

According to attorney John Snyder: "To preserve our Second Amendment rights, we need to end the support of the firearms industry for excise taxes that further its interests..."

What say you?
-----------------------------------------------------------

Ref:
John Snyder, Arms, Law and Society No. 1, Spring 1995
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/ (Look under Great Reading)

NSSF Press Release June 23, 2008
http://nssf.org/news/index.cfm

 

[Kharn]

I bet if we fought hard enough it'd be unconstitutional, but I know of several shooting ranges that were built using its monies. Maybe change the law so that 100% of the tax collected must be spend to provide oppertunities for citizens to become better schooled at arms?

Kharn

 

[everallm]

For anything to happen it would need to be challenged and the result it would then be applicable to ANY taxes on firearms and possibly any accouterments, such as sales tax.....

This would be more vigorously fought by the states than Heller as it directly impacts revenue........

 

[xjchief]

The ends do not justify the means. If newspaper print is entitled to protection from taxation than so should be firearms and ammunition. Rights are nontaxable- period. The Second Amendment is clearly and individual right just as important as all the others.

 

[publius]

If Pittman Robertson is unconstitutional on those grounds, wouldn't the NFA be as well?

 

[waterhouse]

such as sales tax

IANAL, but I believe the Minn. Star case found that "special" tax was illegal. Sales tax applies to everything, so it is fine, but a special additional use tax on paper was found to be against the Constitution.

I doubt we'd see any gain from a drop in the excise tax. If a manufacturer is currently selling a gun for $500 with the 11% tax already built in, they know we are willing to pay $500. If there is no more excise tax, I'm thinking companies will just start pocketing the 11%. Just my opinion though. I do believe the findings of the Minn. Star case have similarities that could be used in fighting the Excise tax, but once again, I'm not a lawyer.

 

[LegalAlien]

If 'special taxes' are illegal, then it opens a whole new can of worms with excise taxes on alcohol products, tobacco products and gasoline.

Smokers might just get a good deal out of any possible litigation on this basis.

Just my random thoughts

 

[TX1911fan]

Special taxes that impact constitutionally guaranteed rights are suspect.

Waterhouse, some companies may pocket the 11%, others would lower prices to get market share. That's capitalism.

 

[TallPine]

If Pittman Robertson is unconstitutional on those grounds, wouldn't the NFA be as well?

That would be a logical conclusion

 

[Gunnerpalace]

The Pittman-Robertson Act (Section 4181), federal excise taxes on firearms and ammunition could be eliminated. Since 1937, these taxes have pumped over $5 billion into conservation, wildlife management and hunter safety programs

I vote YES to keep this,

 

[VARifleman]

What I don't like about it is that it is based on the wrong conclusion that because someone owns guns or uses guns they must be a hunter, when that simply isn't the case.

 

[brickeyee]

If 'special taxes' are illegal, then it opens a whole new can of worms with excise taxes on alcohol products, tobacco products and gasoline.

No enumerated rights in that list.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

If 'special taxes' are illegal, then it opens a whole new can of worms with excise taxes on alcohol products, tobacco products and gasoline.

Smokers might just get a good deal out of any possible litigation on this basis.

Just my random thoughts

I think it's ok to tax alcohol, gas and cigarettes because they are not fundamental rights. They are not Constitutionally protected.

It said here:
In Minneapolis Star v Minnesota, the Supreme Court concluded:
"...differential taxation that selectively burdens the exercise of a fundamental right is impermissable."


I think that even though the money goes to good causes, if this is the case you cannot tax it.


We have to guard ALL of our Constitutional rights, not just the ones we like or dislike.

 

[Rugerlvr]

This of course was started by eliminating the poll tax.

 

[ants]

If we have the enumerated right to free speech, why do they tax your telephone bill?

 

[RMc]

What about gun rights groups?

Will fear of a "hunter-constituency" backlash prevent gun rights organizations from supporting a challenge to FAET taxes on 2nd Amendment grounds?

 

[stevelyn]

P-R has been used to our advantage in the arguements for RKBA and as substance in battles against the eco-nazis.

As much as I hate taxes, I say we should leave this one alone.

 

[Rugerlvr]

If we have the enumerated right to free speech, why do they tax your telephone bill?

Because you don't have a right to telephone service?

 

[lanternlad1]

I think any tax is wrong. That said, I do see the need for them to help the government run and help society. The problem is, the more allowance of tax the people give, the more the government will take. They (gov) already overspend, improperly spend, lose, or just plain squander the resources available to them thanks to our taxes. The government needs a pay cut, and I'm in favor of doing it in any way possible. We might have to "suffer" a little from the loss of unnecessary programs that we have come to enjoy, but freedom isn't easy, and it also isn't lazy. We'll just have to take up some of that slack ourselves instead of whining when the government shuts down a program we like.

"Keep the government poor, and remain free." - Ronald Reagan

"Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man,
the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time
handed out military command, high civil office, legions - everything, now
restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things:
bread and circuses." - Juvenal

 

[Robert Hairless]

It's unconstitutional. It must go.

If some unconstitutional laws are okay because you like the results, other unconstitutional laws will be okay when I like the results, and still others will be okay when Mayors Adrian Fenty, Michael Bloomberg, Richard Daley, Thomas Menino, and a host of other tryants argue that even if the laws are unconstitutional the results are good.

That's the way the world was before Heller.

Don't blow it.

 

[publius]

The Pittman-Robertson Act (Section 4181), federal excise taxes on firearms and ammunition could be eliminated. Since 1937, these taxes have pumped over $5 billion into conservation, wildlife management and hunter safety programs.

I just quickly added up federal spending since 1940 (as far back as my recent Economic Report of the President spreadsheet goes). The total was $47,425,200,000,000. (That's 47 and a half trillion.)

My point? If conservation and wildlife management are a priority, the money can be found without a targeted tax.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I bet if we fought hard enough it'd be unconstitutional, but I know of several shooting ranges that were built using its monies. Maybe change the law so that 100% of the tax collected must be spend to provide oppertunities for citizens to become better schooled at arms?

Kharn

If unconstitutional, it would not matter how the money was used. It would still be unconstitutional.

If we have the enumerated right to free speech, why do they tax your telephone bill?

This is because your speech isn't being taxed, only the use of the phone. As noted above, you don't have a right to phone usage. You are being sold/leased a service and/or equipment.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Some taxes are legitimate fees that serve a useful purpose.

Some taxes are actually fines that are punitive. Most alcohol, tobacco and firearms taxes are "sin taxes" intended to punish "bad" behavior, not simply fund some legitimate government purpose related to the object.

The excise tax on firearms has been used to fund hunting related conservation, IIRC, and has some justification. It has not been a purely punitive measure, a fine disguised as a tax like some of the sin taxes.

 

[publius]

Poll taxes were taxes on the "sin" of voting wrong.

 

[billwiese]

Priorities, folks...

On the scale of things needing to be fought this is way down the list.

Let's get RKBA-per-Heller incorporated first, so as to be affirmed equivalent to other incorporated rights. That opens up a host of issues in CA, NY, MD (and will keep hammering DC) in a big way.

[First step would be to ensure P-R taxes go towards shooting/hunting lands and not general fund administrivia.]

Bill Wiese
San Jose CA