You might want to read the 9th Amendment again.Cigarettes are not a right.
You might want to read the 9th Amendment again.Cigarettes are not a right.
OK, cigarettes are not a constitutionally protected right.You might want to read the 9th Amendment again.
To an extent. All rights are subject to regulation and restriction by law at the federal, state or local level. Even those rights specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights for protection from the federal government, and those rights whose protections have been incorporated against the states. may be restricted to meet a compelling government interest if there is no other way to meet that interest and the restriction does not go beyond that interest.
No right is completely protected from regulation or restriction.
But the difference between banning smoking in public and fire arm ownership/possession is that smoking in public may infringe upon the rights of others.But, cigarettes may be banned without risk of constitutional issues. You may smoke as long as you wish, as often as you wish, unless it is declared illegal, which it can be. Ergo, it is not an established right. While the constitution points out it is not the case that the only rights you have are in the Bill of Rights, that you may do many things legally not specifically spelled out in the Bill of Rights, it does not specifically protect those rights. You do not have the right to drive on public roads, hunt, create or posses child porn, etc. The former activities are permitted, which is to say you have permission provided to purchase a license, while the latter is banned outright unless it happens to be a Led Zeppelin record cover. Smoking is not an established right. You have a right to smoke, but only because the government has not specifically acted to ban it - and even then, it has specifically acted to ban the practice in many places.
But the difference between banning smoking in public and fire arm ownership/possession is that smoking in public may infringe upon the rights of others.
Actually, the poll tax (and the ammo/gun tax) main purpose is to "filter" out the lower segments of society from exercising those particular rights..... which has both a socio-economic component and racial motive.The poll tax is a superb example in this instance as it was a tax designed to deny or punish rights.
Because the "lawful" (as designed and intended) use of cigarettes kills bystanders which is not true of guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash View Post
But, cigarettes may be banned without risk of constitutional issues.
If that money went to good causes like helping underprivileged youth from economically- challenged areas become successful members of society I would have no problem with pay out extra cash.Proposals to tax guns and ammunition
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/07/gun-taxes-owners-second-amendment/2049363/
Interesting article on how certain areas of the country are considering taxes on Firearms and ammo. Some of us might have heard Cook County IL and California proposing to tax guns or ammo.
It seems like there are other areas considering the proposals as well. We should do what we can to not only oppose these proposals but we should alert others to what is being proposed in these other states. There is even an proposal for a Federal tax in addition to already 11% excise tax.
"Legislation introduced in Congress would add a 10% tax to handgun purchases to pay for gun buybacks and other programs. Bills creating new taxes are pending in state legislatures in New Jersey and Washington state."
I paraphrased and reworded some of the proposals. Perhaps others could chime in with information on what is proposed in their states and maybe we can shed a little more light on all of this.
Federal 10% tax on handguns
California 5 cent tax on every bullet
Cook County IL $25 tax and ammo
Massachusetts 25% tax on ammo and firearms
Maryland 50% tax on ammunition and $25 for handgun license
Nevada $25 on gun sales and 2 cents tax on each bullet
NJ and Washington state considering taxes
If such a contribution were voluntary, I would have no problem with it either. But has nothing to do with firearms and ammunition.If that money went to good causes like helping underprivileged youth from economically- challenged areas become successful members of society I would have no problem with pay out extra cash.
By today's standards that would be considered Cruel and Unusual.How about we raise money to give to the victims of violence by putting violent felons into camps and making them work to pay for the Dr bills damages and to replace property?