Via email from the creator about a proposition on the ballet in Colorado:
See also:
- Proposition KK: New excise tax on gun and ammunition sales, explained
- Colorado’s Proposition KK explained: A proposed gun tax – The Colorado Sun
- Colorado Proposition KK Would Place Excise Tax on Firearms | Westword
- Douglas County Commissioners oppose Proposition KK, rejecting additional tax on firearms – Douglas County
Colorado of today sure isn’t the Colorado of my youth. As Washington state is ruled by the Left Coast, Colorado is ruled by the Front Range. Let’s hope there are enough objective thinkers left in Colorado to take this down in flames. If not, it will spread like a cancer.
Perhaps we should propose a tax on digital postings, printer ink and internet videos. I will bet that the meaning of the word “infringed” will become very clear to those who seem to lack that understanding now.
Plain and simple. If you place a tax on all products, flat-sales tax, that would be legal. But a tax on firearms/ammo alone is a clear infringement.
As would a lead and powder tax from king George.
The problem is we let a tax for the preservation of wildlife/habitat on all sporting goods, stand for a very long time now.
That and an excise tax on new firearms manufactured.
There is also some weird ass precedence in the upper courts about the states being unbridled by the constitution before the advent of the 14th. amendment. (Not sure the full argument, Mark Smith at 4boxes mentioned something about it.)
When it come to the history of firearms regulation.
Let’s just hope Colorado hasn’t gone full Oregonian yet in it’s voting process? (Ya, I know, big hopium there.)
It’s not a question you want the courts to answer. The government is never going to give up to a limitation on it’s power to tax. Without a huge fight.
Correct, most though not all state courts pretended, prior to the 14th Amendment, that the 2nd doesn’t apply to states. Or more generally, that the Bill of Rights does not.
For the 1st Amendment the point is arguably correct, since it says “Congress shall make no law…”. But the 2nd says “…shall not be infringed”; it does not say “shall not be infringed by Congress”. So, from what I read in Stephen Halbrook’s “That all men be armed”, the TX Supreme Court held, in a case from before the Civil War, that the 2nd Amendment does indeed constrain the states.
In any case, obviously, the 14th Amendment was specifically written to enforce these restrictions against the states. Infringement on the right to keep and bear arms was one of the main reasons for that amendment to be proposed; the debates in Congress at the time of its adoption make this explicit (again, see Halbrook).
Ya, and wouldn’t that run head-long into the “supremacy clause”?
And what, the feds can’t beat a confession out of you, then use it in court to convict you. But the states can because of the 5A doesn’t apply to them?
That crap don’t pass muster.
I would posit that the states agreed to be bound under the constitution and the bill of rights by ratification.
And in all office holders in all states swearing and oath to uphold it.
Like we’ve talked before, 2A is not right. it’s a warning to politicians of how close they are to getting hurt. (They ain’t smart enough to take the hint. apparently.)
By construction, 1A (“Congress shall make no law…”) seems to leave state regulations open whereas 2A (“shall not be infringed”) does not.
14A “Privileges and immunities” implies if you have a constitutional right somewhere, it applies anywhere…hence, incorporation.
Which has been treated rather strangely, amendment by amendment instead of applying the whole thing at once. Much of the BoR has yet to be officially “incorporated” as binding against the states.