• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gun Owners of America challenges the NFA


As much as I hope it gets overturned, I doubt it will be. This is no different than how federal law is treated in regards to things like Marijuana in states that have legalized it. A military member cannot have in their possession or use marijuana even if they are stationed in their home of record and their state legalized it for recreational use. Many military members have tried to fight that and have lost. Good luck to this guy, but I don't have a high expectation this will be overturned. I've never understood the need to ban an item (like a firearm) that, if left completely alone, will not harm anyone.
 

I doubt that GOA/GOF will win (succeed in overturning the NFA) based on the idea that a tax cannot be levied on a right. One clearly has a right to own real property yet real property is taxed in almost all states. IMHO, they would stand a better chance with the argument that if X is legal under state law then one has a reasonable expectation that federal prosecution would be waived - as is the case for marijuana production, sales and possession in many states.
 
I doubt that GOA/GOF will win (succeed in overturning the NFA) based on the idea that a tax cannot be levied on a right. One clearly has a right to own real property yet real property is taxed in almost all states. IMHO, they would stand a better chance with the argument that if X is legal under state law then one has a reasonable expectation that federal prosecution would be waived - as is the case for marijuana production, sales and possession in many states.

I've suggested this in the past:

Heller: the Second Amendment protects firearms in common use for lawful purposes.
Caetano: The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “ Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010)

As the foregoing makes clear, the pertinent Second Amendment inquiry is whether stun guns are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes today. The Supreme Judicial Court offered only a cursory discussion of that question, noting that the “ ‘number of Tasers and stun guns is dwarfed by the number of firearms.’ ” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This observation may be true, but it is beside the point. Otherwise, a State would be free to ban all weapons except handguns, because “handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home.” Heller, supra, at 629.

The more relevant statistic is that “[h]undreds of thousands of Tasers and stun guns have been sold to private citizens,” who it appears may lawfully possess them in 45 States. People v. Yanna, 297 Mich. App. 137, 144, 824 N. W. 2d 241, 245 (2012) (holding Michigan stun gun ban unconstitutional); see Volokh, Nonlethal Self-Defense, (Almost Entirely) Nonlethal Weapons, and the Rights To Keep and Bear Arms and Defend Life, 62 Stan. L. Rev. 199, 244 (2009) (citing stun gun bans in seven States); Wis. Stat. ?941.295 (Supp. 2015) (amended Wisconsin law permitting stun gun possession); see also Brief in Opposition 11 (acknowledging that “approximately 200,000 civilians owned stun guns” as of 2009). While less popular than handguns, stun guns are widely owned and accepted as a legitimate means of self-defense across the country. Massachusetts’ categorical ban of such weapons therefore violates the Second Amendment.

ATF records: silencers and SBRs possessed for lawful use exceed "hundreds of thousands".
 
I doubt that GOA/GOF will win (succeed in overturning the NFA) based on the idea that a tax cannot be levied on a right. One clearly has a right to own real property yet real property is taxed in almost all states. IMHO, they would stand a better chance with the argument that if X is legal under state law then one has a reasonable expectation that federal prosecution would be waived - as is the case for marijuana production, sales and possession in many states.

Those are state taxes.
 
Those are state taxes.

So what? Are you asserting that the US Constitution does not apply to the states or that federal taxation is not Constitutional?
 
So what? Are you asserting that the US Constitution does not apply to the states or that federal taxation is not Constitutional?

I'm saying the argument can be made that placing a tax on a civil right is unconstitutional.

How do you think it would go over if the government forced journalists to buy a $200 tax stamp, to report the news. Not too good, huh?
 
I doubt that GOA/GOF will win (succeed in overturning the NFA) based on the idea that a tax cannot be levied on a right. One clearly has a right to own real property yet real property is taxed in almost all states. IMHO, they would stand a better chance with the argument that if X is legal under state law then one has a reasonable expectation that federal prosecution would be waived - as is the case for marijuana production, sales and possession in many states.

You should read the writ of certiorari. ;) It makes a good case actually.
 
That's a fee to use the airwave, not to be a journalist.

Exactly, it is a fee to own/use a very specific tool not simply to exercise a basic right. I paid no fee at all (except for sales tax) to legally own my guns.
 
Exactly, it is a fee to own/use a very specific tool not simply to exercise a basic right. I paid no fee at all (except for sales tax) to legally own my guns.

Firearm ownership is a basic right.

And yes, you did pay a Federal tax on your firearms: the Pittman-Robertson tax.
 
I'm saying the argument can be made that placing a tax on a civil right is unconstitutional.

How do you think it would go over if the government forced journalists to buy a $200 tax stamp, to report the news. Not too good, huh?


What about the $75 I just paid for a concealed carry license in Georgia ?
 
I'm saying the argument can be made that placing a tax on a civil right is unconstitutional.

How do you think it would go over if the government forced journalists to buy a $200 tax stamp, to report the news. Not too good, huh?
It wouldn't. If you figure in 2019 $200.00 was the equivalent of almost 3,750.00 in 1934. Yeah it's keeping their so called NFA weapons out of civilian hands.
 
I'm saying the argument can be made that placing a tax on a civil right is unconstitutional.

How do you think it would go over if the government forced journalists to buy a $200 tax stamp, to report the news. Not too good, huh?

I seem to recall something called the marijuana tax stamp act.
 
I'm saying the argument can be made that placing a tax on a civil right is unconstitutional.

How do you think it would go over if the government forced journalists to buy a $200 tax stamp, to report the news. Not too good, huh?

the real goal is overturning the hughes amendment which has no rational basis for its passage.
 
Back
Top Bottom