• partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    There’s been a tax on the second amendment for decades. Having to pay the fees for licensing, and the classes, means there’s a cost to exercise the right.

    I looked at the receipt for a recent gun purchase, a rifle, and there are zero taxes or fees on it except sales tax which applies to nearly all items (such as video games or automobiles) for sale. There were no required licenses or classes to purchase or own this firearm.

    • thedruid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      2 days ago

      in your state. Where I am there are requirements for everything. from buying ammo to getting separate licenses for long guns and pistols.

      the weapon itself is not what I’m talking about. of course that’s taxable.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        So your beef is with a State (or municipal) government. That isn’t quite the same as a restriction at the Federal level that we’re discussing here.

        • thedruid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          It is though. The constitution is the law and it does give supremacy to the feds. Meaning a state or municipal law gives way to federal laws when there are none.

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Again, I think this is a tangent, but even you admit that you are able to buy a gun and own in with these taxes in place. Your 2nd Amendment right is clearly intact. There’s no Constitutional right protecting gun ownership from taxation. Where that isn’t the case with voting. The 24th Amendment protects your right to vote without any fee. Gun ownership has no corresponding Constitutional protection.

            • thedruid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              No. In my state you cannot unless you pay for the classes , fingerprinting and background checks , etc…

              Do not get me wrong I am for classes , and background checks.

              I don’t believe those should cost the prospective owner though.

              Now if there was no cost and those were required, I wouldn’t say a word. I hope my point is a bit clearer

              • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                No. In my state you cannot unless you pay for the classes , fingerprinting and background checks , etc…

                That’s sounds like, yes, with extra steps. I understand not liking the extra steps, but they aren’t unconstitutional.

                Now if there was no cost and those were required, I wouldn’t say a word. I hope my point is a bit clearer

                Your point is clear, but not supported by the Constitution. Taxes and fees, by themselves, aren’t prohibition of freedom. Poll taxes are, as they are specifically called out as outlawed by the Constitution.

                • thedruid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  It has been established as I shared it earlier. .

                  But quite frankly in this timeline it doesn’t matter trump and his Nazi cronies will do as they please