SAF SUES IN MARYLAND OVER HANDGUN PERMIT DENIAL UPDATED 3-5-12

[jpk1md]

'Cause you can't tax books, either?

You're joking right?

 

[Fodder4Thought]

You're joking right?

Not talking about sales tax.

 

[jpk1md]

Not talking about sales tax.

Is there anything to prevent it?

 

[Fodder4Thought]

Is there anything to prevent it?

I'd think that you couldn't impose an ownership tax on the things necessary to exercise a fundamental right. That said, I don't know if there exists legislation or precedent to prevent it, but I'd be fairly surprised if there doesn't.

 

[jpk1md]

I'd think that you couldn't impose an ownership tax on the things necessary to exercise a fundamental right. That said, I don't know if there exists legislation or precedent to prevent it, but I'd be fairly surprised if there doesn't.

Why not?

We impose a Sales Tax on books as it stands in most states....is there anything preventing the taxation of Books, Food, Ammo, Clothing or any other possession?

Again, the precedent is set clearly with a Property Tax on other forms of Private Property so what distinguishes Firearms, Automobiles or Holters required for CCW?

 

[Patrick]

I'd think that you couldn't impose an ownership tax on the things necessary to exercise a fundamental right. That said, I don't know if there exists legislation or precedent to prevent it, but I'd be fairly surprised if there doesn't.

Right you are. A tax was created in the 1930s to tax newspaper circulation. It did not pass muster with the courts. I am too lazy to look it up for you right now, so please Google away.

Generally, taxes, fees and restrictions on commercial items required as part of the exercise of a fundamental right are protected, often with strict scrutiny. For instance, a community ban on sales on Sunday failed when it affected a bookstore. The logic of the court: it did not matter that the book could be sold on Saturday. Some people would want to buy them on Sunday. You cannot inconvenience the First Amendment.

Yes, there are parallels with the Second Amendment to be made. And they will be.

The start is the Nordyke case in California, currently sitting and awaiting decision by the Ninth Circuit. They gotta be hating that case by now (10 years and counting). It challenges restriction on gun shows on county fairground property, and is basically a direct call for strict scrutiny on 2A related commercial activity. The right to bear arms (in your home) is nothing if you cannot buy a gun. The parallels with the First Amendment are eerie. And because it conflicts with activity even in the anti-gun zealot's favorite "in the home" zone, it should be a slam dunk. But it won't be.

Fees, taxes and the like are going to be challenged in the future. Many of them are going to be in trouble. Especially onerous ones that even come close to restricting the ability of lower-income people from exercising the right. Anything that perturbs the exercise of a fundamental right is going to be a tough sell.

But don't rush out filing suits yet. We can make those fights after we've broadened the field a bit.

 

[jpk1md]

Patrick, first, you're going to have to establish strict scrutiny which if I understand correctly was NOT established by SCOTUS in Heller....please correct me if I'm wrong on that detail

Second, we already pay taxes on Books, Newspapers and other items that can logically/illogically be tied to 1A so this doesn't hold water as it stands.

There are all kinds of interesting pieces that come up in a google search of Newspaper Tax

http://www.google.com/search?q=news...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

So currently this is not an unconstitutional practice.

 

[Fodder4Thought]

Patrick, first, you're going to have to establish strict scrutiny which if I understand correctly was NOT established by SCOTUS in Heller....please correct me if I'm wrong on that detail

Second, we already pay taxes on Books, Newspapers and other items that can logically/illogically be tied to 1A so this doesn't hold water as it stands.

There are all kinds of interesting pieces that come up in a google search of Newspaper Tax

http://www.google.com/search?q=news...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

So currently this is not an unconstitutional practice.

A lot of those look like they're modern things being pushed by the newspapers themselves - tax hikes on other things so the money can be given to the newspapers. An ongoing bailout, of sorts.

 

[Patrick]

Heller established nothing in the way of means-end scrutiny. That's why I brought up Nordyke, in which the plaintiffs are seeking exactly that, and for this purpose (protection of commerce in 2A related sales).

Taxes can be paid on protected items, the question is whether a tax is specific to the protected activity and whether it is considered constraining of the right. A general sales tax is no problem, because it is customarily paid on everything you buy (or a large enough subset), so there is no specific suppression involved. Creating a tax on newspaper circulation - or a higher tax on newspapers themselves - is not constitutional. If there are working examples of this in the USA I'd love to see them. The UK has issues here, and newspaper taxes there are specifically linked to suppression of speech.

Anything that suppresses a fundamental right is subject to a critical eye, often using strict scrutiny.

But strict scrutiny is not a silver bullet. It does permit some restriction, typically in time/place/manner. It is not an invulnerable shield.

But off the top of my head, the protection of commerce in 2A items should hopefully put an end to these annoying "SB 1099" threads that come up on gun forums about once a quarter. But in the real world, I think we're going to see strong challenges on excise taxes federal on ammo and guns. The government will need to prove that taxing these protected items are critical for some...reason. And funding the ATF won't be enough of an excuse.

Permit fees...? Probably will need to be limited in price. MD will not get by charging $500 a year for a permit.

Basically, if enough cases like Nordyke succeed, we're looking at regimented protection for core 2A-related commercial items: guns and ammo.

And before y'all start getting your hopes up, these will not include NFA tax stamps. Those items are going to be protected at a much lower level because they are (unfortunately) outside the most protected core of Heller, which outright called them "unusual".

Best thing to do with NFA is get our new Congress to dump it. Right now. We got enough votes, I would think.

 

[Patrick]

A lot of those look like they're modern things being pushed by the newspapers themselves - tax hikes on other things so the money can be given to the newspapers. An ongoing bailout, of sorts.

Yes. There is a push among several papers to create a stable funding source for themselves through taxation. Of course, that means the government gets involved with deciding who qualifies for funds...which leads to a state press...which leads to all kinds of goodness. Think a printed version of PBS/NPR but without the common corporate name. Any paper in any town could be a "national public newspaper" and you would be hard-pressed to know it. History is full of examples of how this works to the advantage of the government people.

The taxes I speak of are ones applied specifically to protected items and nothing/little else. Those are considered suppressive.

 

[E.Shell]

In addition to our 6% Maryland Sales Tax, we also have the 11% Pittman-Robertson Tax on guns and ammunition, so your God given "right" is already taxed inordinately (17%) as it is.

 

[Kharn]

If you'd like more reading about newspaper regulations/taxes and 1A, check out Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue from 1983.

 

[Abacab]

In addition to our 6% Maryland Sales Tax, we also have the 11% Pittman-Robertson Tax on guns and ammunition, so your God given "right" is already taxed inordinately (17%) as it is.

I've often heard of the "built in taxes" on firearms but never knew what the name of the bill was.

 

[jpk1md]

If you'd like more reading about newspaper regulations/taxes and 1A, check out Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue from 1983.

The Tax example above while interesting bears little similarity to many of the tax schemes currently in use and others that would be perfectly valid to implement on firearms/

In states that already tax significant "Property" it would not be a stretch in any way to extend such a property tax to Firearms.

You pay taxes on your Car, House, Truck, and other significant pieces of property, to include Firearms would not be a stretch by any means nor is there any reason to believe that it would be in any way not constitutional.

Same point with broad based sales taxes.

 

[boricuamaximus]

Yes but the Pittman-Robertson act is a good tax. I am happy that guns, ammo, bows and arrows have that included onto them. They fund our parks and nature preserves etc. Also, the way that it was written, it goes directly to fund our National Parks and their Rangers. It does not go into the general slush fund that people can just use it.

The guys that wrote it knew that was going to happen so it's by law that it goes directly into what we enjoy.

 

[Abacab]

Yes but the Pittman-Robertson act is a good tax. I am happy that guns, ammo, bows and arrows have that included onto them. They fund our parks and nature preserves etc. Also, the way that it was written, it goes directly to fund our National Parks and their Rangers. It does not go into the general slush fund that people can just use it.

The guys that wrote it knew that was going to happen so it's by law that it goes directly into what we enjoy.

Eh.....not sure why my gun purchase should finance a park elsewhere. True enough that if you have a tax, good that the money is forced somewhere. On the other hand, they raise so much money with corporate and personal income taxes that I think they can find the $700 million elsewhere.

 

[Papi4baby]

Eh.....not sure why my gun purchase should finance a park elsewhere. True enough that if you have a tax, good that the money is forced somewhere. On the other hand, they raise so much money with corporate and personal income taxes that I think they can find the $700 million elsewhere.

You need to read more of his post.

He's a raging liberal...

 

[boricuamaximus]

Eh.....not sure why my gun purchase should finance a park elsewhere. True enough that if you have a tax, good that the money is forced somewhere. On the other hand, they raise so much money with corporate and personal income taxes that I think they can find the $700 million elsewhere.

It finances all Natinal Parks and Conservation efforts and the Fed Park Rangers. The law is written that the money cannot go anywhere else but to fund those programs.

I have a few friends that work for National Parks and while they dont have a lavish budget but they are funded. Kinda how the wolves are off the endagered species list, buffaloes have not gone extinct. The Everglades, Yosemite etc.

Guns, Ammo and Archery, targets and all of that stuff goes to fund this. We fund what we use and enjoy. There's no messing around with begging social security for the funding of these etc. The money goes from us to Uncle Sam's Green Thumb and no deviation. The writters of that bill knew what was going to happen if the money did not go directly to the Nat. Park system or whatever is called.


and I am a raging liberal when it comes to rivers, streams, wildlife and especially weltland and sea water preservation. Seen about 30% of the places that I grew up in plowed over for upper middle class suburbs to become abandoned because they got flooded due to having no wetlands to hold back the storm. Now the places are mosquito filled crack houses.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Quite simply because its the same problem in each of these cases.

We're backing ourselves into a corner and we should hold no illusions that we are not.

BTW, something cannot both be "Crap" and "Have Merit".

This is a matter of Federalism (Fed Gov and Several States) v National Government.

Krucam, I applaud your efforts to document and inform folks on individual cases but please don't be so arrogant as to assume that a great many of these cases are a good approach to our 2A issues and to attempt to stifle or restrict discussion on that very point is short sighted at best.

Article of Amendment Fourteen, Section Five, gives Congress the authority to enforce civil rights actions, which they have done under 42USC1983.

I really don't understand why you're pushing for the idea that the federal courts have no power to strike down state laws which violate the US constitution, or that they shouldn't.

 

[jpk1md]

Article of Amendment Fourteen, Section Five, gives Congress the authority to enforce civil rights actions, which they have done under 42USC1983.

I really don't understand why you're pushing for the idea that the federal courts have no power to strike down state laws which violate the US constitution, or that they shouldn't.

Go look at my response to your same question in a similar thread.

2A is RIGHT not a Privilege.