|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 23, 2015, 07:13 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,869
|
"the power to tax involves the power to destroy,"
so said Chief Justice John Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland circa 1819 in that states "have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden or in any manner control the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress."
Apparently that's lost on the good city of Seattle http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/23...ts-groups.html And make no mistake, the power to preferentially tax something out of common access by The People will be used no less than direct attack on the object it self -- and a way for counties/municipalities to get around any State preemption laws. As Tom Servo says in another, related, post: "This has one, and only one, purpose. It has only one intention. That is to make life harder on all gun owners." . Last edited by mehavey; December 23, 2015 at 08:45 AM. |
December 28, 2015, 10:02 AM | #2 | |
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
|
Quote:
|
|
December 28, 2015, 10:21 AM | #3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Does anyone have a link to the text of the actual decision? I'm wondering if this is another 2A case in which the lower-court judge punted and issued a grossly simplistic and partisan decision, under the assumption that the decision would be appealed no matter what he/she said.
Quote:
I'm curious if someone more familiar with WA will chime in on this.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak Last edited by carguychris; December 28, 2015 at 11:31 AM. Reason: typo |
|
December 28, 2015, 10:48 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,869
|
See here:
http://www.seattle.gov/council/burge...iolenceTax.pdf She says that the Fees "...are not to regulate... but to tax for public benefit...." The grease on that slope is mighty slick indeed. . Last edited by mehavey; December 28, 2015 at 11:44 AM. |
December 28, 2015, 11:17 AM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,235
|
Cities are not allowed to enact their own gun laws in WA, but that hasn't kept them from trying.
Restraining any other comments as they are not directly related to L&CR....
__________________
Woohoo, I’m back In Texas!!! |
December 28, 2015, 11:54 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
|
So lets see a tax, for the public benefit, on registered voters, and another on permits for protest gatherings. Maybe a nickel tax on blog posts, and $25 on keyboard purchases, too.
|
December 28, 2015, 12:10 PM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 30, 2009
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 7,172
|
Quote:
__________________
As always, YMMV. __________________________________________ MIIAA SIFE Last edited by gyvel; December 28, 2015 at 12:15 PM. |
|
December 28, 2015, 12:35 PM | #8 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
The second obvious flaw is encapsulated in this quote from Page 3 of the Memorandum Opinion, my emphasis in boldface. Quote:
This burden is particularly acute because the ordinance applies to everyone "engaging... in the business" of selling firearms and ammo in Seattle. Quote:
"Engaging in the business" per the Seattle Municipal Code means... Quote:
So anyone selling more firearms or ammo than what is spelled out in 5.50.060 is "engaging in the business", which means they must get a license... Quote:
However, here's the bottom line: selling ONE 500-ROUND BRICK OF .22LR in Seattle legally makes one subject not only to the tax, but also to the business license requirements! This sure seems like a burden to me, although it may not apply to the plaintiffs specifically, and I don't know if they made this argument in court.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
|||||
December 28, 2015, 02:05 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2007
Posts: 1,100
|
My question is, is it even legal to tax any right whatsoever, because at some point, regardless of how small the tax is, there will be those who cannot exercise that right because of lack of funds. This should apply to firearms as well as any other right granted us by the Constitution.
|
December 28, 2015, 02:57 PM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
However, I'd argue that the ordinance clearly seeks to drive lawful commerce in arms and ammunition out of the city, and is thus an illegal regulation dolled up as a lawful tax. Notably, as I detailed in my prior post, the ordinance makes it near-impossible to hold a gun show in Seattle, as anyone selling at such a show would invite the Seattle tax authority's scrutiny by "soliciting sales" in an open public forum.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak Last edited by carguychris; December 28, 2015 at 03:14 PM. Reason: typo |
|
December 28, 2015, 03:09 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,235
|
well, I guess the Craigslist sellers that sell to panic buyers during panics will be out of business as well.
__________________
Woohoo, I’m back In Texas!!! |
December 29, 2015, 07:39 AM | #12 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 280
|
Quote:
Quote:
Another common misconception is when people say, "X is not a Constitutionally-protected right..." that takes the view that if something is not mentioned explicitly in the BoR, that it was not seen by the Founders as being a natural right that the government has no power to infringe upon. But the BoR only was a list of ten rights that were seen as most important to list, but not all the natural rights. For example, the right to acquire food and water also was understood, but that was considered so obvious that it was not seen that an amendment be written to protect those. |
||
December 29, 2015, 11:48 AM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,235
|
Much of America does not have the right to acquire food and water. Not without making a monetary contribution.
Many cities will fine for gardens. Let you hunt without strict rules? Don't let modern politics fool you into thinking that you are free. And they will tax every civil right if they could get away with it.
__________________
Woohoo, I’m back In Texas!!! |
December 29, 2015, 12:22 PM | #14 |
Member
Join Date: December 23, 2007
Location: Central South Carolina
Posts: 89
|
^^^^^
As I remember reading somewhere: don't accept a longer chain as more freedom. Rick
__________________
NRA Training Counselor NRA Advanced Pistol Instructor NRA RTBAV Regional Counselor Member IALEFI, SCLEOA |
December 29, 2015, 12:31 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
It should be pointed out that—RKBA arguments aside—excise taxes specific to firearms and ammunition are pretty much settled law.
I think the best argument here is narrower: WA state law preempts cities from enacting regulations on firearms or ammunition, and although the City of Seattle argues that this ordinance is a lawful excise tax, it actually functions as a regulation by placing an unfair burden on local Seattle sellers, and is therefore in conflict with the WA preemption statute.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
December 29, 2015, 09:24 PM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 280
|
Quote:
|
|
December 29, 2015, 09:27 PM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 280
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|