Actually I'd have no problem with that then. I've read that LEO prices for full auto AR-15 are in the $1500 range, so with a 100% tax, that would make them $3000. That's far less than the current $15,000-20,000 prices for a registered lower.chabouk wrote:It amounted to a 100% tax on the Thompson submachinegun, which cost roughly $200 at the time.MechAg94 wrote:I was thinking about that $200 tax. I saw on an inflation calculator that $200 in 1934 is almost $3300 in today's dollar.chabouk wrote:The $200 NFA tax imposed in 1934 is no different than a poll tax, or requiring a fee to exercise free speech.
Of course, it amounted to a thousand percent tax on sawed-off shotguns.
After McDonald, what's next?
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Re: After McDonald, what's next?
Re: After McDonald, what's next?
NFA tax should be the same amount as the poll tax.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 6
- Posts: 1447
- Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:53 pm
Re: After McDonald, what's next?
George F. Will chimes in for incorporation of the Second Amendment under the Privileges or Immunities clause:Since 1897, the court has held, with no discernible principle, that some rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are sufficiently fundamental to be "incorporated" but others are not. This doctrine bears the oxymoronic name of "substantive due process." Substance is what process questions are not about.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02873.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: After McDonald, what's next?
Bump for todays news.... Now I most likely am reading everything wrong but did SCOTUS make the ruling based off P&I?
*Taurus PT845/745
*Bersa Thunder 9 Compact
*Bersa Thunder 9 Compact
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 4638
- Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:35 pm
- Location: Houston, TX
Re: After McDonald, what's next?
I read it as Due Process. But I am not a Lawyer, for sure.rob845 wrote:Bump for todays news.... Now I most likely am reading everything wrong but did SCOTUS make the ruling based off P&I?
Life NRA
USMC 76-93
USAR 99-07 (Retired)
OEF 06-07
USMC 76-93
USAR 99-07 (Retired)
OEF 06-07
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 1551
- Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 9:48 pm
- Location: Odessa
Re: After McDonald, what's next?
I understand that "strict scrutiny" was missing from the Heller decision. Very good to be in here.Ashlar wrote: For those not in the know, strict scrutiny means that any infringement of a right must meet certain criteria:
1. Must serve a compelling government interest- this interest must be necessary or crucial, not just preferred. This interest must be concrete, not a generalization or vague 'maintain order' kind of interest.
2. Must be narrowly tailored- it must target the compelling interest squarely. Too broad, and it fails this test.
3. Must be the least restrictive means- Another less restrictive means must not exist that achieves the same compelling interest.
Then there two avenues I would look to in Texas.
One is Texas' law that holds that they make make the rules about bearing of arms with a view to control crime. Rather omnibus, imho..
We are repeatedly told in Austin that we are allowed permission, not a privilege.
The second is the "no lesser restrictive avenue must exist". The Motorist Protection Act allows for concealed carry with no licensing. I am wondering if this the niche our legislators might be encouraged to adapt for all legal carry.
Ø resist
Take away the second first, and the first is gone in a second.
NRA Life Member, TSRA, chl instructor
Take away the second first, and the first is gone in a second.
NRA Life Member, TSRA, chl instructor
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 974
- Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 12:55 pm
- Location: Seguin, Texas
Re: After McDonald, what's next?
Yes, it is Due Process. P&I got eviscerated by Scalia from the bench during the hearing back in March.Purplehood wrote:I read it as Due Process. But I am not a Lawyer, for sure.rob845 wrote:Bump for todays news.... Now I most likely am reading everything wrong but did SCOTUS make the ruling based off P&I?
"I don't know how that would ever be useful, but I want two!"
Springs are cheap - your gun and your life aren't.
Springs are cheap - your gun and your life aren't.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 5240
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:26 pm
- Location: Richardson, TX
Re: After McDonald, what's next?
Before you close your mind on that, take the time to read Justice Thomas' concurring opinion. He writes at great length explaining that the Privileges and Immunities clause SHOULD be the rationale for all such decisions and mourns the fact that the court did not take this opportunity to do so.grad_Student wrote:I'd just like to add the Gura's "privileges or immunities" argument might have been the worst argument to come with. There hasn't been a successful "privileges or immunities" clause argument since 1873. As a first year law student you learn that it hasn't worked in a 140 years so it's very doubtful that the argument would work this go-round. I did enjoy Gura's attempt at getting the Second amendment incorporated in the 14th through it, but darn, he wasted most of time by even bringing up the issue.
I think he is correct, and his opinion may well influence future court decisions.
The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. James Madison
NRA Life Member Texas Firearms Coalition member
NRA Life Member Texas Firearms Coalition member