Posts: 13,934
Threads: 1,261
Joined: May 2025
N-OS X-tasy! wrote:
[quote=Ted King]
[quote=N-OS X-tasy!]
It won't hold up constitutionally.
You are going to tax ALL gun owners - citizens who are exercising their constitutional right to own guns - to pay for costs incurred by the actions of a few bad eggs who happen to also own guns? Not a chance. This may initially pass, but in the end it will be found unconstitutional.
Don't we already allow sales taxes on guns (in places that have sales taxes) when a gun is purchased?
A sales tax is entirely different thing than an ownership liability tax.
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? Do you know of legal precedent of invoking Constitutional protection for a "ownership liability tax for gun owners" or is this based on your personal perspective?
Posts: 28,821
Threads: 209
Joined: May 2025
Ted King wrote:
[quote=N-OS X-tasy!]
[quote=Ted King]
[quote=N-OS X-tasy!]
It won't hold up constitutionally.
You are going to tax ALL gun owners - citizens who are exercising their constitutional right to own guns - to pay for costs incurred by the actions of a few bad eggs who happen to also own guns? Not a chance. This may initially pass, but in the end it will be found unconstitutional.
Don't we already allow sales taxes on guns (in places that have sales taxes) when a gun is purchased?
A sales tax is entirely different thing than an ownership liability tax.
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.
Posts: 6,477
Threads: 536
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
Well - if the reasoning behind this is to raise revenue to pay for criminal misdeeds, why don't they implement a licensing scheme?
i.e. in order to commit a crime within City Limits, a person would have to be licensed to do so.
The collected licensing fees could then be used to pay for any damages resulting from crime.
There...done...easy-peasy.
As an added bonus, the City would also already have a database of known criminals, which should make solving crimes much easier as well.
Posts: 13,934
Threads: 1,261
Joined: May 2025
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.
Posts: 37,931
Threads: 4,153
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
3
N-OS X-tasy! wrote:
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.
It just occurred to me that this is not true at all. The 2nd amendment says there is a right to 'keep and bear arms'. They could have specifically stated 'own', but they say 'keep and bear' instead. I never noticed that before...
Posts: 31,261
Threads: 2,348
Joined: Feb 2025
I suspect that some of the same issues raised in abolishing poll taxes will be used to attack and overturn this tax.
Posts: 26,012
Threads: 2,901
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
1
This will get shot down by The Equal Protection Clause...
Posts: 13,934
Threads: 1,261
Joined: May 2025
freeradical wrote:
This will get shot down by The Equal Protection Clause...
https://constitutioncenter.org/interacti...lauses/702
The Supreme Court has also used the Equal Protection Clause to prohibit discrimination on other bases besides race. Most laws are assessed under so-called “rational basis scrutiny.” Here, any plausible and legitimate reason for the discrimination is sufficient to render it constitutional. But laws that rely on so-called “suspect classifications” are assessed under “heightened scrutiny.” Here, the government must have important or compelling reasons to justify the discrimination, and the discrimination must be carefully tailored to serve those reasons. What types of classifications are “suspect”? In light of the history of the Equal Protection Clause, it is no surprise that race and national origin are suspect classifications. But the Court has also held that gender, immigration status, and wedlock status at birth qualify as suspect classifications. The Court has rejected arguments that age and poverty should be elevated to suspect classifications.
One of the greatest controversies regarding the Equal Protection Clause today is whether the Court should find that sexual orientation is a suspect classification. In its recent same-sex marriage opinion, Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Court suggested that discrimination against gays and lesbians can violate the Equal Protection Clause. But the Court did not decide what level of scrutiny should apply, leaving this question for another day.
I don't see gun ownership listed as being adjudicated to be a "suspect classification", so the court would need to hear an argument for the inclusion of gun owners as a "suspect classification" and rule in favor of it.
Posts: 33,855
Threads: 2,463
Joined: Apr 2025
Reputation:
0
I’ve been advocating for a form of gun insurance for years. This might fit the bill.
Posts: 16,789
Threads: 722
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
N-OS X-tasy! wrote:
[quote=Ca Bob]
There are excise taxes on all sorts of things. There are fees. It cost me a huge amount to renew a passport. The price of an airline ticket includes all sorts of add ons.
Not even close to being the same thing.
Au contraire...
" Federal taxes (on gasoline) include excises taxes of 18.3 cents per gallon on gasoline and 24.3 cents per gallon on diesel fuel, and a Leaking Underground Storage Tank fee of 0.1 cents per gallon on both fuels. State taxes include rates of general application including, but not limited to, excise taxes, environmental taxes, special taxes, and inspection fees..."
|
