Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: robertpaulsen
A $200.00 tax on a $5.00 shotgun is not a revenue measure, and Miller's lawyer argued exactly that. The appellate court agreed, which is noted in US v. Miller: "A duly interposed demurrer alleged: The National Firearms Act is not a revenue measure but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States, and is therefore unconstitutional."

Another case before the Supreme Court specifically upheld this ruling, although it was decided much later. I'll be damned if I can find it on the internet, I need a library with the Supreme Court Reporter to get the case and citation.

29 posted on 12/30/2006 4:43:48 PM PST by sig226 (See my profile for the democrat culture of corruption list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]


To: sig226
"The appellate court agreed, which is noted in US v. Miller: "A duly interposed demurrer alleged: The National Firearms Act is not a revenue measure but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States, and is therefore unconstitutional."

We don't know what they agreed to. The demurrer stated that the NFA usurped state police power and it stated that it violated the second amendment. The District court sustained the demurrer.

When it got to the U.S. Supreme Court however, they cited a number of cases supporting their position that "the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable."

ie., BS.

I don't think a later court upheld the claim that it usurped state police power -- don't we still have this tax today?

30 posted on 12/31/2006 5:30:38 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson