I don't think a $200 tax is so high that it prevents many people from buying covered items. I do think it alters the value for money proposition of those items so that many fewer people may want to buy them.
I don't mean that in a pedantic way. I haven't purchased any ammunition since prices shot up. It isn't that I can't; it's that I think it is a poor value.
Quote:
|
Is it legal to tax a right, such as the right to keep and bear arms? Certainly we have seen steep rises in the taxes on our weapons and ammunition, but just because we allow the government to do it, is it legal? Certainly if you elevate taxes, then it will limit, at some point, the peoples ability to exercise that right
|
I bolded the pivotal terms in your post.
I have to pay sales, excise and environmental taxes when I buy tires, but I would have a tough time arguing for overturning those taxes on the basis that they infringe my right to travel.
Recall that one of the proposed facet of HilaryCare was to be a steep tax on cigarettes, but she and her commission concluded that
too steep a tax would reduce revenue by discouraging smoking.
So, we know that taxing an activity may discourage it. Can the state discourage an activity, yet not infringe upon the freedom to engage in it?
The original $200 stamp seems an arguable infringement, but inflation has ameliorated a lot of that limitation.