(07-05-2021 09:41 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  It seems like a small price to pay for the right to own guns.

The price to own guns was paid in full when legally purchased.

You want to start taxing free speech, right of assembly, abortions, gay marriage, and due process, come on back to chat.

It's not a tax. It's a requirement to have liability insurance, as with driving a car.

There is no express constitutional right to operate a vehicle on public roads last I heard.

I already have liability insurance so I’m good thanks.

A tax on all my guns is not “insurance”.

(07-05-2021 10:18 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  It's not a tax. It's a requirement to have liability insurance, as with driving a car.

It's the same weak tired ass argument again, it's all you idiots have. There is no enshrined right to own or operate a vehicle. STFU and sit down while the adults discuss this.

Even if such an express constitutional right to operate a car existed (it doesn’t) this proposal is like forcing any owner of any car regardless of whether it’s ever driven or even operable to carry full liability insurance.

Plain and simple, it’s an ownership tax that burdens a constitutional right in a manner that won’t pass a strict scrutiny sniff test. This will get pimp-slapped in federal appeals court after the partisan trial judge passes it on up the line. These cities like Chicago just never learn. Taxpayers in that town are going to spend way more wasteful $$ on legal fees than this would bring in.

Like I said, propose a tax on abortions and marriage and due process, etc. and then report back.

The Constitution grants the right to bear arms but doesn't bar taxes or fees on the sale or ownership of them and the courts can't pretend that it does.

When I retire, I look forward to visiting almost every state in the Union, not on my list, CA, WA, OR, and unfortunately HI (any state that would elect Mazie Hirono senator isn't worth visiting).

(07-06-2021 06:17 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  The Constitution grants the right to bear arms but doesn't bar taxes or fees on the sale or ownership of them and the courts can't pretend that it does.

Address the specific points that were raised, please.

(07-05-2021 09:41 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  It seems like a small price to pay for the right to own guns.

Geezus the ignorance is strong in this one

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Heck, I’ll Make it easy...forget the constitutional issues which are the 5,000 lb elephant in the room...those are incomprehensible to a big chunk of folks.

Can you name one single item of legally acquired personal property that requires the owner in the United States to pay an annual tax for just the right to merely own, not use, without the state coming to confiscate it?

I can’t in passing but admittedly I have not searched.

Will I have to pay taxes on all those guns I lost in the lake?

Every one of them. Lol

This gets the lawyer in me all riled up

(07-06-2021 07:22 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Heck, I’ll Make it easy...forget the constitutional issues which are the 5,000 lb elephant in the room...those are incomprehensible to a big chunk of folks.

Can you name one single item of legally acquired personal property that requires the owner in the United States to pay an annual tax for just the right to merely own, not use, without the state coming to confiscate it?

I can’t in passing but admittedly I have not searched.

Well the dems were able to force a tax on us Americans for simply drawing air into our lungs.... so i assume they think anything is fair game

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

(07-06-2021 06:17 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  The Constitution grants the right to bear arms but doesn't bar taxes or fees on the sale or ownership of them and the courts can't pretend that it does.

In that case the question will be if municipalities have those rights as opposed to the states.

DC vs Heller found that it is the people that ultimately have the right to keep and bear arms, and that banning handguns and requiring locks on or disassembly of long arms restricts an individual's right to self-defense.

McDonald vs Chicago basically applied Heller nationally, recognizing that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment applies to the exercise of the Individual's Constitutional right to Keep and Bear arms.

What a lot of these new municipal level anti-2nd Amendment ordinances are trying to do is impose a virtual ban on weapons within their jurisdiction, thus undermining the right to keep and bear arms while circumventing direct conflict with the 2nd Amendment.

Imagine if a city tried to kill off churches by imposing a tax on them or requiring them to get extra insurance because something highly unlikely may happen.

Or if the same city required you to pay taxes to exercise your right to free speech.

(07-06-2021 06:17 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  The Constitution grants the right to bear arms but doesn't bar taxes or fees on the sale or ownership of them and the courts can't pretend that it does.

The Constitution grants the right to vote, and that was held to bar poll taxes.

(07-07-2021 11:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-06-2021 06:17 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  The Constitution grants the right to bear arms but doesn't bar taxes or fees on the sale or ownership of them and the courts can't pretend that it does.

The Constitution grants the right to vote, and that was held to bar poll taxes.

I can see the ruling referring to unnecessary burden on the individual to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.