07-01-2021, 01:41 AM
N-OS X-tasy! wrote:
[quote=Ted King]
But if a sales tax doesn't invoke Constitutional protection for gun owners, why would the Constitution prevent a "ownership liability tax"? What's the legal reasoning for the distinction that would hold up in court?
Because a sales tax is a tax that every person must pay on any non-food goods they purchase, with the generated revenue going towards the state's general coffers, which benefits all residents.
This gun tax would be a punitive tax meant to pay for very specific services such as "police response, ambulance transport and gunshot-related medical treatment for victims." Why, as a gun owner (which I'm not, BTW), should I be burdened with paying for services related to gun violence when I've never shot anybody or used a gun to commit a crime in my entire life, and never will? Why shouldn't the individuals who will benefit from the provided services be the ones to pay the tax? That's more in line with how taxation is supposed to work: those who potentially stand to benefit from the service pay the tax.
Not to mention that gun ownership is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Purchasing a car isn't. Going on a shopping spree isn't. Owning a gun is. Taxing gun owners simply because they happen to own a gun won't fly legally.
Believe me or don't - doesn't matter to me. I'm no legal scholar, that's for sure. But let's get together a few years from now to see how this played out - I feel pretty confident my prediction will have turned out to be correct.
I believe you think your argument is correct, but I was wondering if your opinion about whether or not such taxes are unConstitutional was based on precedent that you know of. I can see that there might be a plausible case for courts ruling the way you argue - especially with the makeup of this Supreme Court - but until the courts rule we can't be sure.