Nah. Though, that would be the NRAs wet dream lol.
I’ve thrown out a number of ideas off the top of my head which look good at first glance. I’m sure others have good ones too.
The problem here is that these laws still only affect people who are willing to follow them. There are no laws that can be put in place that will actually stop mass shooting events; they will only reduce the number of good guys that can do something to stop them.
The laws won’t affect good guys.
But they will affect many bad guys who buy guns legally for illegitimate uses. They won’t affect all bad guys though, you’re right.
Which laws exactly? Background checks or something else? asking for clarity
I don’t understand how someone can support limiting the freedom that actually protects all of our other freedoms, but isn’t willing to impose the same restrictions on the other freedoms.
2 Likes
I don’t think you are trying very hard. I understand people are capable of thinking inconsistently.
I don’t think we should further limit with regulation around bans, background checks, etc. Just put a tax on firearms to pay for the negative externalities caused by having that right. We seem to be okay with taxing or penalizing other activities or products with negative externalities.
From who?
What other inalienable right is taxed? Misinformation can cause negative externalities. Should you have to have a license to publish anything or to voice your opion? People who voted for Biden have cost me more money that a gun ever will on it’s own. Poll tax time. It can be argued that religion alone has caused more death and destruction than anything else in history. Screw freedom of religion.
1 Like
I believe Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness are considered inalienable rights. It seems almost everything in life is taxed.
Your right to bear arms isn’t being taxed, only the purchase of said arm.
Maybe booze is key to my pursuit of happiness. But booze has negative impacts to society (subjectively), so we place more taxes on it. Is the government getting in the way of my inalienable right to the pursuit happiness by placing extra tax on booze?
I don’t know too many guys buying guns legally for illegitimate purposes. That is an EXTREMELY rare occurrence. And yes more laws will affect the good guys with more bullshit.
How about applying the laws already on the books? And stop giving those poor downtrodden criminals slaps on the wrist for committing crimes with guns. Also, why are the areas with the most strict gun control ones with the highest crime with guns?
I think almost every country with stricter gun laws has lower gun crime than us on a per person basis.
Sure, but compare their violent crime rates with ours. The US has always had a disproportionately high violent crime rate compared to other similar countries, but aside from the societal issues that cause this - I believe you would find our violent crime rates about the same.
This would indicate that violence will still happen with or without guns in the picture. Guns can certainly escalate a problem, but they are a measure of safety that is not to be denied.
2 Likes
That is because you can’t tax a right directly like that. It has been tried many times already and ruled unconstitutional.
County approves taxes on guns, ammo despite being ruled unconstitutional (lawenforcementtoday.com)
A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.
A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. Just like it is unconstitutional to charge a fee to vote. Any tax that directly targets a right protected by an amendment is by definition unlawful.
Read more: US Supreme Court: Gun Licensing Fees Are Unconstitutional - American Thinker
Drinking is a privilege and not a right, so they can tax it as much as they want until they amend the constitution to cover drinking as a right.
Also to note:
Levying taxes on firearms you already own will violate the Article I ban on federal property taxes. So requiring a license to continually possess firearm or to just possess them is also unconstitutional, but nice ideas guys.
2 Likes
As a lawyer with (I think you said) experience in the criminal court system, you should know why criminals get wrist slaps and plea deals all day. There isn’t capacity in the system, and there is churn in big city prosecutor offices. Crazy overworked.
Regardless, I’m not sure how to stop all gun violence. I do know the suggestions I made would help, and would have stopped this latest tragedy… And if the downside is added minor inconvenience for a hobbyist like you to add to your gun collection, I think it’s a small price to pay.
Yes, and that is a huge problem. Let the non-violent offenders go and keep those in jail with jail’s intended purpose to keep those that are dangerous to society locked up.
But, we both know it is a money issue. Non-violent offenders are cheaper to house, require fewer guards, but bring the same money.
So, how about we start actually punishing offenders instead of heaping more bullshit on to a “hobbyist” as you say exercising his rights. I don’t like being punished for actions of others and I won’t stand for it. Yeah a small price to pay and what is next? How far are YOU willing to go to trample on me?
Your desire to feel safe ends where my rights begin.
And no, they would not help. All of those prohibitions and laws sure have helped the war on drugs hasn’t it? Do you think if there is a black market and money to be made that weapons won’t be readily available to anyone? You don’t live in reality.
I am not sure that lines up with current tax laws. Isn’t there a special tax already in place? Just googled and got this:
It also sound like intention matters. If they say it is to pay for costs to society caused by guns it is okay. If they say it is a strategy for reducing access not okay.
They could do what I propose, they just would have to say its to raise money to place guards in schools or something, not what I said.
Schumer blocked a republican bill named after the parkland shooting victims, school safety bill
so, who is playing politics
Intention and where the money goes always matters.
The case in IL was ruled unconstitutional because the money was going to a public safety fund. Pretty sure taxing firearms directly with a special tax for that purpose would also be unconstitutional.
1 Like
Perhaps. I am not super convinced on much here. It seems that revenue from gun tax can be used generally to raise funds. Not sure how specific a bill can be.
Curious what you think taxing guns will achieve tbh. Even if the money gained via gun taxes was intended for a specific purpose, why do you think the government will use it specifically for that purpose?
2 Likes
Their track record says emphatically, no.
2 Likes