Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

GlamorousBunchberry t1_j9v9wum wrote

It's obviously not an infringement of the 2A. Folks who get outraged about this are reacting not so much to the tax itself as to what they perceive as the legislators' motives. If hypothetically they'd set the tax at $5 per round, I think it would be easy to see their viewpoint.

For comparison, machine guns are still legal to own in most of the US. The National Firearms Act of 1934 decided to tax them instead of banning them. The tax, $400, is negligible today, but at the time it was the equivalent of over $4K in present-day dollars. It was ample to keep poor and minorities from owning these guns, while it was barely an inconvenience to the wealthy.

* And they went the taxation route because they believed at the time that a ban would have been struck down as unconstitutional. They were explicitly trying to reduce ownership of machine guns without ever resorting to a ban.

** What really cut down their availability was the 1986 ban on manufacture or importation of machine guns for civilian use. All machine guns in circulation today were manufactured pre-1986.


TreeEleben t1_j9wn6iq wrote

The government has capped the number of legal machine guns, the cheapest is over $10k. They're banned from anyone who isn't rich. Taxing ammo beyond normal sales tax is solely intended to make practice and recreational shooting too expensive for most people.


gewehr44 t1_j9vl461 wrote

An onerous tax would 'obviously' be an infringement. The question is where that line is? After Bruen, these taxes might be struck down.


CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_j9yehpt wrote

Doesn’t infringe on anything. You still are able to keep and bear arms. Can’t afford the bullets? Oh, well. You could always make your own.


gewehr44 t1_ja1ul72 wrote

Could the govt tax newspapers so that every copy cost $100?


CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_ja2hjxq wrote

Yeah, if they so chose.


gewehr44 t1_ja5i709 wrote

Disagree. Under Murdock v pa the state cannot tax a right. Taxing something that is a right to make it unaffordable would be unconstitutional. See also poll taxes.


CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_ja5mfn2 wrote

Touché. Fortunately ammunition isn’t a right.


gewehr44 t1_ja6vjmo wrote

I forgot someone else wrote about this:

The idea that ammunition isn't included is laughable. There are a number of court cases that should be decided this year that will shed some more light on this topic


CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_ja7nind wrote

Why would ammunition be a right? Not mentioned at all. I fear you will be disappointed with the results of those court cases.


gewehr44 t1_ja7phfv wrote

The right to keep and bear arms is not just about guns. It also includes knives & other implements useful for self defense. In Caetano v Massachusetts, stun guns were deemed to be protected by the 2nd. Claiming that the people can own arms but not the means to make them useful is a 'too clever by half' interpretation.


CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_ja7q5q2 wrote

But not ammunition.


gewehr44 t1_jaa3n5p wrote


CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_jachrce wrote

Another article full of likely. But no decision.


gewehr44 t1_jadr2x3 wrote

If it's so obvious then, why hasn't any state passed legislation banning ammunition? I don't think it's even been proposed.


GlamorousBunchberry t1_j9vth2v wrote

Agreed. 3c doesn't seem like much if you're shooting rifle calibers, but since I normally shoot .22, and I remember when the round itself cost 2c, I'd find it outrageous enough to do all my shopping out of state.