Pittman Roberston Excise Tax on Guns & Ammunition Unconstitutional?

[Flyboy]

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.....

Not true. Sales taxes, etc. that are applied to all manufactured products would still be permissible. Minnesota's constitutional blunder was in creating a tax that applied specifically and solely to the press--it was structured as a tax on paper and ink, but with an exemption for the first $100,000 spent. That led to a situation in which only large-scale press would be subject to the tax.

From the Court:

Minnesota has offered no adequate justification for the special treatment of newspapers. Its interest in raising revenue, standing alone, cannot justify such treatment, for the alternative means of taxing businesses generally is clearly available. And the State has offered no explanation of why it chose to use a substitute for the sales tax rather [460 U.S. 575, 576] than the sales tax itself.

This seems to suggest that a neutrally-applied sales tax is perfectly acceptable.

 

[Autolycus]

I am sorry but I don't support it as it taxes my right. I don't hunt and I don't feel I should be forced to pay taxes on conservation. I am already a member of the Sierra Club, why should the government take more from me because someone else wants conservation done on their behalf by the government? Join an organization that will support your cause and don't impose the costs of these things on me.

 

[ants]

Quote:
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.

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

I used the telephone analogy after I read the post about the Minnesota tax on newsprint. Owning a telephone or newsprint are not guaranteed rights, but those are media for exercising First Amendment rights. The newsprint tax was found unconstitutional because it taxed the medium for the First Amendment, so I asked about telephone taxes for the same reason.

For that matter, what about license fees for television and radio stations. Those are media for free speech and free press, so why do they require a license fee for those media if the Minnesota newsprint law was found unconstitutional?

 

[nicki]

Excise tax on guns.

The amount of the excise tax is no the issue, it is that the excise tax is taxing a fundamental right that is the issue.

The original NFA 1934 transfer tax of 200 dollars per machinegun wasn't enacted to collect taxes, it was a end run around the 2nd amendment to raise the cost of buying a machinegun so high, few could afford to pay it.

In the 1930's, there were proposals to extend the taxes to other guns as well.

For me the ideal compromise would be the following, we get the tax ruled unconstitutional, but the firearms industry as a whole changes from collecting a tax and instead makes it a industry contribution.

I realize that the NSSF members may not go along, but I see no other way.

I myself am not a hunter, but the 11 percent I pay on guns and ammo buys good public relations, as such, I view it as money well spent.

This way, the firearms industry now controls the money and where it goes to.

We probably would probably find the money being spent more effectively in the process.

Use of various tax schemes is how our opponents will try to violate our rights through backdoor efforts.

Remember, our opponents have no ethics.

Nicki

 

[model 649]

I disagree that we should pay a tax because of "good public relations". I have a fundamental right to arms, I need no P.R. to support it.
Josh

 

[Autolycus]

nicki: I see your point about it being good public relations. However why not have the ones who don't mind this tax just pay for it out of their own pockets with the money saved on this tax and those of us who don't want our rights taxed let us keep our money?

 

[Robert Hairless]

For me the ideal compromise would be the following, we get the tax ruled unconstitutional, but the firearms industry as a whole changes from collecting a tax and instead makes it a industry contribution.

Nicki, I'm very much in favor of any idea that says we get a tax repealed and they pay that money out of their own pockets instead.

This is an idea I support wholeheartedly and I think every other gun owner would too.

It is change I can believe in.

 

[publius]

For that matter, what about license fees for television and radio stations. Those are media for free speech and free press, so why do they require a license fee for those media if the Minnesota newsprint law was found unconstitutional?

The government protects a station's right to broadcast on a certain frequency in a certain area, like fencing off a piece of the spectrum so that property rights in it can be defined and protected. Also, the government then gets to tell the station which words and topics are and are not appropriate for discussion under the license.

 

[Art Eatman]

Believe it or not, kiddies, there was a time when gun rights weren't really a big issue. Really!

The Pittman/Robinson and Dingell/Johnson tax laws came about as a result of the lobbying efforts of hunters. Those monies are distributed among the states' wildlife agencies, pro-rated by the numbers of hunting/fishing licenses.

"I don't hunt..." So? I don't use public shooting ranges built with public money. So? I don't shoot machine guns, but I support the right to own one. None of those 'I don't..." things matter. I send several hundred bucks a year to lobbyists for RKBA. So? "I don't shoot skeet, so I don't care if they shut down that shotgun range."

We're all in this together. The little dab of money is one of the few taxes that actually benefits some part of the shooting fraternity.

Just because you don't hunt doesn't mean you sanction poaching, right? I imagine a non-hunter takes it for granted that poaching is something to be fought against. So, buy a gun or a hunting license and help fight against a specific crime.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Art has a good point. It seems like the opposition is trying to kill America’s love for firearms by shrinking the sporting use. I have very little animosity against paying a tax on ammunition that will be used to fuel America’s firearm fraternity. Part of the libertarian in me dislikes this tax practice but….anything that cultivates the sport is a good thing.

I have to admit I really like the idea of the NFA registry going away. But how do we make NFA go away using this “can’t tax a constitutional right” reasoning while keeping the P/R & D/J tax laws legal?

 

[Robert Hairless]

I have to admit I really like the idea of the NFA registry going away. But how do we make NFA go away using this “can’t tax a constitutional right” reasoning while keeping the P/R & D/J tax laws legal?

There's the rub and that's part of the reasoning behind my first post in this thread. There is no predicting all the ramifications of an unconstitutional law but what is predictable is that some of them are going to be very bad. That's why the Constitution is important. It defines principles worth defending so we all know the ground rules and can play by them.

Gun rights weren't an issue when the Pitman-Robinson Act was passed in 1937. It did benefit hunters and others interested in the great cause of protecting wildlife and their habitats but it was at least a little bit unconstitutional. Still, it was mostly good. In 1912 when the Sullivan Act was passed in New York gun rights weren't much of an issue then either. Everyone knew that the good people could get away with doing just about anything they wanted and the bad people needed to be prevented from becoming too upitty.

So with a wink and a nod, the unconstitutional becomes established and the established becomes habitual and the habitual is common and ordinary and precedential. Far better to stay with the high road and the Constitution.

I usually agree with Art, perhaps because he has the advantage of great age and wisdom. This time I disagree, perhaps from my vantage point of relative youth and idealism. I don't see the issue as among the first level priorities but I do think it should be addressed.

 

[publius]

The little dab of money is one of the few taxes that actually benefits some part of the shooting fraternity.

It still has to go away, or at least change form. Taxing a fundamental right should just not be on the table, no matter the purpose served by the tax. It might even be a good idea to attack these taxes in order to set a precedent which will undermine the NFA. Anything that benefits hunters won't have many left wing supporters.

 

[langenc]

Wasnt the PR tax put on at the request of gunners and not the likes of Teddy, John or Diane??

 

[RMc]

Strict Scrutiny for 2nd Amend = No Pittman Robertson Tax

The best way to move SCOTUS to recognize a Strict Scrutiny Standard for the 2nd Amendment is by using the court's own precedent set for the 1st amendment. Placing a special tax on a constitutionally protected venue (things needed to excersize that right) are on their face unconstitutional!

As John Snyder said:

"This collaboration of the firearms industry, through its trade organizations, with the federal government to further the recreational interests of hunters and other outdoor sportsmen is a dangerous entanglement that threatens our Second Amendment rights.

We know, from Minneapolis Star, that the Supreme Court will not countenance differential tax treatment that burdens or threatens the exercise of a fundamental individual right. What the Court will not do, we also know, is render judgment about the constitutionality of taxes based on an economic assessment of just how burdensome they are. We cannot, therefore, simply condone the imposition of specific excise taxes on firearms so long as they remain modest in amount, believing that we can wait to raise the question when the taxes reach truly burdensome levels, and then contest them on grounds that they have become burdensome."

 

[Autolycus]

I still am against the tax. As I said before, I don't hunt and I don't think I should pay for hunting grounds. If those hunters dislike it fine, I will come out and support their right to hunt when they come out and support my right to hunt with a Machinegun.

Either way, if you are concerned about the issue of hunting lands and wildlife funds, then take money out of your own pocket and pay for it. It is welfare in a sense.

 

[Rmeju]

As "good" as this tax is, I would still rather have a definitive exemption of firearms and ammunition from "special" taxes. Then we can have all the people who believe enough in conservation to donate their money to special private NFP's in order to keep wildlife safe.

So, while the net effect of removing this tax would at best be very minimal, the precedent it would set, and the message it would send to the Obamas of the world, would be worth far, far, far more.

Heck, it might not even be a bad place to get strict scrutiny implemented. But I haven't made it to law school... yet

Rmeju

 

[EShell]

OMG, if I had that 11% back on every sporting goods and firearms dollar I've ever spent, I could retire tomorrow and maybe buy a small state.

 

[Poper]

I, too, have great admiration and respect for Art. However, I must say I am with Robert Hairless on this one.

Accepting a tax on an enumerated right, no matter how well intentioned, corrupts the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, both of which should remain intact. Want to change it? There is a defined procedure for that. Have at it. Otherwise, keep your grubby paws off.

However, IIRC, P/R Act also taxes camping gear, fishing gear, and similar outdoors sporting goods/products.
If so, then are Mountain Bikes, 4 wheelers, Sandrails, Snowmobiles and similar goodies subject to the tax, too?

Just curious.

Poper

 

[sniper5]

I think this is one we should leave alone--for now. However, it does give us ammo (pardon the pun) for some of the gun control cult who want to tax ammo into oblivion at $5000 per round as a workaround to the 2nd amendment. Then it might wind up becoming collateral damage in a bigger war.

 

[everallm]

If we read the OP's element from the SCOTUS ruling

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.

In this case for example print machines, bundlers, distribution networks, packaging etc are not covered.

Ammunition is a FINISHED product not a precursor element such as raw newsprint and so is not really likely to successful challenge.

In this case at best we could see a challenge based upon reloading components, possibly barrels, receivers etc.

 

[jdorian]

On the ammo part, if you reload, don't you avoid paying the taxes?

 

[Art Eatman]

Poper, to oversimplify, your grandaddy and my grandaddy asked for that tax for the direct benefit of shooters and hunters. From a strict Libertarian viewpoint, I'll not argue about its "wrongness", but from a practical real-world deal, I support it quite strongly. Same for Dingell/Johnson. It's user-pay, same as the gasoline tax.

We're stuck with taxes, and at least this one goes to a useful purpose.

Looking at crapola like this bailout garbage for $700 billion that's all tax money, worrying about Pitman/Robinson is serious peeing in the whiskey over nothing. "Some folks would complain if they were hanged with a new rope."

, Art

 

[LAR-15]

This tax (which also includes archery equipment) has been used to restore white-tailed deer, building public shooting ranges, gun safety courses, hunter education courses, purchasing public recreation lands, and other projects that benefit hunters and shooters.

It was a tax pushed by hunters and conservationists.

It was and has never been an anti gun tax.

 

[RMc]

What would be wrong with:

What would be wrong with user fees supporting all the conservation, range construction, hunter education, wildlife management areas, etc.?

OR

What would be wrong with special taxes (say 11%) on Newspapers at the manufacturer's level to support literacy education and public libraries?

OR

What what would be wrong with a voter registration tax to support the operation of the election process?

OR

What would be wrong with a special internet access license fee to promote computer literacy and online consumer safety?


As John Snyder said:

"This collaboration of the firearms industry, through its trade organizations, with the federal government to further the recreational interests of hunters and other outdoor sportsmen is a dangerous entanglement that threatens our Second Amendment rights."

 

[Art Eatman]

RMc, you can always figure that I'm gonna favor user-fee taxes. I support a poll tax; if you don't vote, why should you pay for the cost of elections? Same reasoning, I support the transportation fuel tax which pays for the roads and suchlike.

But I don't see how an Internet tax could actually D-O do anything. And the literacy tax would be involved with far too complex a system to be worthwhile.

I have maybe a half-century of observation of government through adult eyes and with some understanding of consequences. I tend to judge stuff by whether or not there has been worthwhile accomplishment. Since I see far more positive than negative from Pitman/Robinson and Dingell/Johnson, I'm not about to call for their demise. To repeat, they've done a bunch of good since their passage.