Justice Dept.: Missouri governor can't void federal gun laws
https://apnews.com › article12 hours ago — WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department is warning Missouri officials that the state can't ignore federal law, after the governor signed a ...
Way to go Missouri.
- Thread starter Maggot
- Start date
12 hours ago — WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department is warning Missouri officials that the state can't ignore federal law, after the governor signed a ...
Yet what has the Justice Department done about States using the same tactic regarding sanctuary for illegal immigrants?
The only “force” the fed has over the states is to stop the flow of federal dollars going to them.
Which is all the force they need.
Which is all the force they need.
The only “force” the fed has over the states is to stop the flow of federal dollars going to them.
Which is all the force they need.
Precisely! It's how they got all the states to raise the "drinking age" to 21.... threaten to withhold Federal highway funds..
Texas is going to take ours to Federal court to rule they don't have jurisdiction on silencers when it's all within-state. No interstate commerce.
What about the Federal tax on suppressor? Congress under the Constitution has the power to tax and they made a law to tax suppressor. If you pay the tax they know who you are if you don’t pay the tax and they find you you’ll get hit with tax evasion too.
To be honest, I have no idea how that tax has stood up to scrutiny. It clearly only purpose is to keep poor people from exercising their right to bear arms. Other similar laws have been struck down. $200 may not be a lot in this day and age for most.. but it clearly is for some... even more so back when they established this.
I don’t agree with tax stamps at all, but.....
Seeing as how it’s the law right now If you can’t afford a $200 stamp to stay legal(or become Lamar’s bitch) maybe you shouldn’t be spending two to six times the amount on a suppressor. Hell if there wasn’t a tax stamp and you couldn’t afford $200 you don’t need a suppressor, you need to pay some fucking bills.
“To be honest, I have no idea how that tax has stood up to scrutiny.”
Why would they say “oh no, we don’t want more of your money...you deserve it” it’s the federal government, they’re tax 100% on your pay if they could.
The same way Obamacare did, again.
Yeah, the bought and paid for roberts w/ the supremes just ruled in favor of obammie care for the second time.
It will be fascinating to see if mo. gov. will walk the walk now, or if he just folds like so many do. If he folds, then it was just pandering like so many of these career assholes do.
Wickard v. Filburn - Wikipedia
Ok, so apparently SC rules that any activity that could affect interstate commerce can also then be regulated.. BUT, this assumes that "stabilizing prices" on interstate commerce itself is valid for congress... which I'd argue pretty much fucking isn't a legal "goal" itself.
I think the only valid attack will be against the $200 "tax" to consumers violates open "access" to their 2a rights.
(Yes, I can afford it.. that's not the fucking point)
How about a $200 poll tax or worship license? If you can’t afford that, you need to pay some bills.
There are several cases ruled that you can't tax a fundamental right...
supreme.justia.com
and this one... https://www.nprillinois.org/stateho...tionality-of-cook-county-tax-on-guns-and-ammo
Holy cow.. looks like that case from 2015 is just NOW having some more oral arguements last month?!?
http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/SupremeCourt/Docket/default.asp (as of 5/13/21)
Case No. 126014 — Guns Save Life, Inc., et al., etc., Appellants, v. Zahra Ali, etc., et al., Appellees. Appeal, Appellate Court, First District
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
Murdock v. Pennsylvania: It is unconstitutional for a state to tax people selling religious merchandise.
supreme.justia.com
and this one... https://www.nprillinois.org/stateho...tionality-of-cook-county-tax-on-guns-and-ammo
Holy cow.. looks like that case from 2015 is just NOW having some more oral arguements last month?!?
http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/SupremeCourt/Docket/default.asp (as of 5/13/21)
Case No. 126014 — Guns Save Life, Inc., et al., etc., Appellants, v. Zahra Ali, etc., et al., Appellees. Appeal, Appellate Court, First District
shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...QUIET. I'm all for dumping the tax, but don't give ideas (that they already have).
dont get your hopes up. There is fresh case law rulings, almost 2 years ago, the 10 Circuit court of appeals basically struck down the Kansas suppressor law. Talked to a good friend yesterday, SOT/can dealer etc, says he knows how this is going to go and is not touching it. Hes too easy of a target for the ATF. and believe me, under BIden, the ATF is going to have carte blanche to wreck everything they can, especially to punish a REd state like Texas.
2 Kansas men 'collateral damage' in gun control dispute
WICHITA, Kan. (AP) — The unregistered gun silencers, each stamped "Made in Kansas, were arranged in a display case at a military surplus store in a rural Kansas town. Beside them was a copy of a...
apnews.com
Claiming a 200 stamp keeps poors from buying cans is a terrible argument. You can hardly buy ammo if you can’t pay that and you definitely can’t afford a can. I skipped buying a lot of extra shit I wanted on 11/hr for a while to buy my can.
Now if you’re saying taxation is theft, it’s an infringement of god given rights, and keeping you from protecting everyone’s hearing I can get behind that.
Nor would anybody expect that! Same for weed!
This sure sends a message when it comes to the 2nd Amendment...........I can only hope that more states follow suit! This is a good thing!
I really hope you are not suggesting these laws are a bad thing. Do they hold a lot of water.....maybe not, but it steers the ship in the right direction.dont get your hopes up. There is fresh case law rulings, almost 2 years ago, the 10 Circuit court of appeals basically struck down the Kansas suppressor law. Talked to a good friend yesterday, SOT/can dealer etc, says he knows how this is going to go and is not touching it. Hes too easy of a target for the ATF. and believe me, under BIden, the ATF is going to have carte blanche to wreck everything they can, especially to punish a REd state like Texas.
2 Kansas men 'collateral damage' in gun control dispute
WICHITA, Kan. (AP) — The unregistered gun silencers, each stamped "Made in Kansas, were arranged in a display case at a military surplus store in a rural Kansas town. Beside them was a copy of a...
It's $200 per can. That's not so insignificant when multiplied out across multiple calibers, let alone multiple cans per caliber. Are you a poor that only owns one rifle?
im not saying they are bad. But they are more symbolic than anything, and i hope individual end users understand that and whats at risk.
in recent memory, ATF raided 80 percent Polymer and started visiting their customers getting the products back.
Know what you're getting into, dont just blindly think a state law/LEO are going to save you from the ATF. its shitty but thats the reality.
SCOTUS shot that down in Murdoch vs Pennsylvania long ago. You can’t tax a right because it assumes the premise of man having the power to grant or restrict inalienable rights.There are several cases ruled that you can't tax a fundamental right...
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
Murdock v. Pennsylvania: It is unconstitutional for a state to tax people selling religious merchandise.
and this one... https://www.nprillinois.org/stateho...tionality-of-cook-county-tax-on-guns-and-ammo
Holy cow.. looks like that case from 2015 is just NOW having some more oral arguements last month?!?
http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/SupremeCourt/Docket/default.asp (as of 5/13/21)
Case No. 126014 — Guns Save Life, Inc., et al., etc., Appellants, v. Zahra Ali, etc., et al., Appellees. Appeal, Appellate Court, First District
In a first amendment case involving freedom of the press and religion, the Supreme Court ruled "The power to impose a license fee on a constitutional right amounts to prior restraint and the power to restrict or deny the right ... a tax laid specifically on the exercise of these freedoms would be unconstitutional."
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 1943 319 US 105
Nope, just don’t keep buying cans I can’t afford like a normal person.
Once again your financial situation is a real shitty argument against this. There’s actually good arguments listed above. You have the right to own the ability to afford it is on you.
You’re so stuck in blaming your financial situation you fail to see where I say I don’t agree with stamps, but it’s still a fact of life that we have to deal with. If you can’t scrape together 200 for a stamp then how the hell are you going to buy multiple $400-1000+ Cans without stamps?
Will you magically get rich when stamps go away?
Last edited:
My financial situation is just fine, thanks, but I'm not so out of touch that I can't see that a 20%+ markup on an item might be prohibitive to some people. Not to mention the fact that the extended tax stamp/paperwork process also drives the price of a suppressor up thanks to the additional tax burden forced upon manufacturers and distributors.
Finances don’t matter, neither does how
many of what matters. It’s irrelevant if the tax is a penny or a grand, you can’t tax a right. These justifications of budgets and needs are the same reason so many of our other rights have been eroded, the “Doesn’t affect me” crowd selling others out is why we have mag limits and semi auto bans in many states, and so many other laws at state and federal levels in the works that go much further.
It’s either Constitutional or it isn’t, there’s no reasoning or justification involved in that conversation, and a tax on any right is unconstitutional regardless the amount.
many of what matters. It’s irrelevant if the tax is a penny or a grand, you can’t tax a right. These justifications of budgets and needs are the same reason so many of our other rights have been eroded, the “Doesn’t affect me” crowd selling others out is why we have mag limits and semi auto bans in many states, and so many other laws at state and federal levels in the works that go much further.
It’s either Constitutional or it isn’t, there’s no reasoning or justification involved in that conversation, and a tax on any right is unconstitutional regardless the amount.
Not to mention the prolonged waiting period. You can buy a weapon with a DOJ check that day in a lot of states, but you can't buy a taxed accessory, which, by itself cannot harm anyone, without waiting for the same amount of time it takes to conceive and birth a baby.
You're taking it personal for some reason, your/you can be used as a general term and not actually mean you specifically. Though normally used that way.
I doubt they would go down much if at all, they already know what we will pay.
I could see a bunch of cheap junk in comparison cans becoming a thing though.
You seem to think people are for this for some reason, though I've said I'm not for tax stamps.
At this point it's pay it or be a felon. I bet you have paid tax stamps if you have NFA items.
That flow of money from the states to the federal government can be stopped as well.The only “force” the fed has over the states is to stop the flow of federal dollars going to them.
Which is all the force they need.
The original intent of the 200 dollar tax stamp was to make it extremely hard to afford.
The wages in 1934 were typically in the 35 to 55 dollars A WEEK for skilled labor.
So, you're talking an entire months (or more) salary just for the stamp.
The wages in 1934 were typically in the 35 to 55 dollars A WEEK for skilled labor.
So, you're talking an entire months (or more) salary just for the stamp.
It funny, states can enact laws that cause LESS FREEDOM then federally allowed. like road blocks aka “safety checks”, or terry laws, or gun laws like NY or NJ, and the mighty fed is cool with it.
Pass a law that gives MORE FREEDOM than the fed allows, and the fed loses its shit over it.
When rights become privileges, laws become laughable
Those of you saying don’t be poor regarding unconstitutional fees, where you have to give money to the state to exercise your rights, why dontcha go play in traffic.
I can afford a 1,000 can, but I can’t “afford” a 0.01 “fee” on it
Pass a law that gives MORE FREEDOM than the fed allows, and the fed loses its shit over it.
When rights become privileges, laws become laughable
Those of you saying don’t be poor regarding unconstitutional fees, where you have to give money to the state to exercise your rights, why dontcha go play in traffic.
I can afford a 1,000 can, but I can’t “afford” a 0.01 “fee” on it
Last edited:
Unless the businesses stop paying quarterly taxes then fed will still get their money.
Fed income tax
Fed gas tax
Fed ss tax
Ect
all collected and paid via business.
you can delay some of that if you claim a bazillion dependents
There's a difference between saying it's unconstitutional and saying you can't afford something because of the extra money.
The first sounds good, the second the avareage know nothing won't listen to. Most of them want all our shit on lists and taxed.
It sounds like a bunch of whining instead of actually trying to change things
The first sounds good, the second the avareage know nothing won't listen to. Most of them want all our shit on lists and taxed.
It sounds like a bunch of whining instead of actually trying to change things
It’s your double talk, you’re against it while you’re also justifying it by saying it’s not that much. There is no “But…” when it comes to rights and the infringement upon them.
And to be clear, I’m not saying for people to violate the law, I’m saying the law is a violation. I have zero stamps, I’m the asshole with the brakes on my rifles everyone at matches bitches about, and I’ve never cared for sub guns as they do neither the job of a rifle nor pistol well. And finally, well, I’m not going to play their game either, I quit jumping through their hoops long ago. Not their monkey, not going to their circus.
"Double talk" equate me with the left I see.
That's your right to not participate, and no one has said it isn’t a violation yet you conveniently skip that part. If anyone else wants to play we have to pay the stamp or risk prison. We don't pay it because we agree with it. You CAN legally do something and also fight against the fact it's required.
I go to lots of ranges and most people run brakes, but pretend youre the one special guy I guess. One third of one percent own suppressors, most of the other 99+% have brakes unless you shoot at an all Fudd range.
Just sitting there not participating isn't really doing anything how about you fight it instead. You live here so you play their games daily. Unless you don’t pay taxes on income, road tax, property tax, car registration, whatever else. Guess what? It’s all wrong, but you still do it. You can also fight against it.
So why should I let this stop me from having fun? Possession of items they don't want to be in existence in the first place seems like a bigger FU than not having them.
It was designed to be a pain in the ass to get one, every range trip I have to explain that and they see that suppressors aren't what TV and movies make them think. Lots of folks against them realize they aren't a big deal when you let them try yours.
I've swayed a lot of opinions, and the more owners the more power we have to enact change.
I'm doing more good owning one and paying a stamp than you are by doing nothing.
That's your right to not participate, and no one has said it isn’t a violation yet you conveniently skip that part. If anyone else wants to play we have to pay the stamp or risk prison. We don't pay it because we agree with it. You CAN legally do something and also fight against the fact it's required.
I go to lots of ranges and most people run brakes, but pretend youre the one special guy I guess. One third of one percent own suppressors, most of the other 99+% have brakes unless you shoot at an all Fudd range.
Just sitting there not participating isn't really doing anything how about you fight it instead. You live here so you play their games daily. Unless you don’t pay taxes on income, road tax, property tax, car registration, whatever else. Guess what? It’s all wrong, but you still do it. You can also fight against it.
So why should I let this stop me from having fun? Possession of items they don't want to be in existence in the first place seems like a bigger FU than not having them.
It was designed to be a pain in the ass to get one, every range trip I have to explain that and they see that suppressors aren't what TV and movies make them think. Lots of folks against them realize they aren't a big deal when you let them try yours.
I've swayed a lot of opinions, and the more owners the more power we have to enact change.
I'm doing more good owning one and paying a stamp than you are by doing nothing.
Last edited:
State laws making it illegal to collect federal taxes with draconian penalties. A tax revolt basically.
So here's the thing with states rights. It's always been an argument from the fed that they trump everyone; of course it is, its like asking you if you want to determine your own salary or not.
In reality, and the way the founders looked at it was, that the fed gets its power from the states, not the other way around. If a state doesn't seem to be ok with something, they can then basically say 'we re doing/not doing THIS in our state' and have jurisdiction of just what goes on inside of state lines, but nothing to do with the neighboring state or the fed.
It basically boils down to how far the state, the state's government and their citizens are willing to go in an effort to actively enforce/not enforce what they want, regardless of what the fed wants. It's really that simple.
Think of this as an example. Watch this video of Tyson giving an interview. At some point in it, he has enough of the faggot interviewer trying to put him in a corner and asking him shit he doesn't want to talk about. There's a time in there where you see that the interviewer realizes that he has absolutely zero protection as opposed to what level of social protection he assumed he had by being around other people, being on TV, and in general just sitting and doing an interview.
Tyson asks the best question ever - What are you going to do about it? The answer that doesn't need to be said because we all know it, is absolutely nothing because Tyson would be willing to literally decapitate you with his bare hands on live TV.
The question goes to the core of this with the states and fed. If the state is ready to 'defend' itself against you on rights that pertain to citizens of that state, and we are willing to go the distance with it, what are you actually going to be able to do about it?
That is the basic ethos of where we are right now as citizens of a state, as Americans, as conservatives, as non-mentally ill people, as gun owners, etc. Enough of us get together and say, WTF are you going to do about it because we're willing to go the distance - and most of your problems magically go away.
In reality, and the way the founders looked at it was, that the fed gets its power from the states, not the other way around. If a state doesn't seem to be ok with something, they can then basically say 'we re doing/not doing THIS in our state' and have jurisdiction of just what goes on inside of state lines, but nothing to do with the neighboring state or the fed.
It basically boils down to how far the state, the state's government and their citizens are willing to go in an effort to actively enforce/not enforce what they want, regardless of what the fed wants. It's really that simple.
Think of this as an example. Watch this video of Tyson giving an interview. At some point in it, he has enough of the faggot interviewer trying to put him in a corner and asking him shit he doesn't want to talk about. There's a time in there where you see that the interviewer realizes that he has absolutely zero protection as opposed to what level of social protection he assumed he had by being around other people, being on TV, and in general just sitting and doing an interview.
Tyson asks the best question ever - What are you going to do about it? The answer that doesn't need to be said because we all know it, is absolutely nothing because Tyson would be willing to literally decapitate you with his bare hands on live TV.
The question goes to the core of this with the states and fed. If the state is ready to 'defend' itself against you on rights that pertain to citizens of that state, and we are willing to go the distance with it, what are you actually going to be able to do about it?
That is the basic ethos of where we are right now as citizens of a state, as Americans, as conservatives, as non-mentally ill people, as gun owners, etc. Enough of us get together and say, WTF are you going to do about it because we're willing to go the distance - and most of your problems magically go away.
in theory, you are correct. especially about the founders intention.
the problem is that the Federal government has spent the last 140+ years amassing, stealing from the states, and centralizing federal government power. just look at the powers the executive and judicial branch have granted themselves. Thats the real problem. Government exists to expand its own power. and it has, unchecked, for far too long.
Covid answered this question 100%
The states just pander to voters, they won’t do dick all to protect you from any whim of the fed.
What was that meme, no ones coming to save you, you’re on your own
Similar threads
