[DugwayDuke]

It’s bull crap. The courts have ruled that a tax must have raising revenue as it’s principal objective. It cannot be a tax if it’s purpose is to prevent a specific commercial activity.

Every few years, some one wants to put porn videos out of business by a similar taxation scheme. $500 rental fees, etc. Courts always shoot these schemes down.

[flamberge]

The courts have ruled that a tax must have raising revenue as it’s principal objective.

That used to be important.

Nowadays, the Democrats can go shopping for a judge who will give them almost any ruling they want. Or they can simply ignore the court rulings and do what they wanted to do anyway. The plaintiffs will eventually run out of money, lawyers, and time for appeals or injunctions.

The Democrats are under no such limitations. And if they do get an adverse ruling, they simply try again by passing a new law, just slightly different from the old law.

We still have a lot of pretenses, but the rule-of-law is mostly gone. Our current political and social system are following in that direction.

[BatGuano]

The tax, proposed, is simply a penalty, punishment for purchasing a gun that the left has demonized.

Giving them a chance to punish legal trade is treason.

That treason should be punished, harshly and quickly!

[NorthMountain]

It’s bull crap. The courts have ruled that a tax must have raising revenue as it’s principal objective. It cannot be a tax if it’s purpose is to prevent a specific commercial activity.

If the courts were honest, that would put an end to the $200 transfer tax on most "NFA" items.

[jdege]

The courts have ruled that a tax must have raising revenue as it’s principal objective. It cannot be a tax if it’s purpose is to prevent a specific commercial activity.

Unless it's guns. If it weren't for the "because guns" exception, the NRA would have been overturned, long so.

[Hyman Roth]

I’m sure Robert’s would agree with you/s

[ronnie raygun]

we already have enough, do what ever you want. If anyone out there doesnt have one yet who woke you up?

[Blue Collar Christian]

“It’s bull crap. The courts have ruled that a tax must have raising revenue as it’s principal objective. It cannot be a tax if it’s purpose is to prevent a specific commercial activity.”

It seems they have been getting away with it since the 1930s, so I wouldn’t bank on “The courts” ruling.

[alexander_busek]

The courts have ruled that a tax must have raising revenue as it’s its principal objective. It cannot be a tax if it’s its purpose is to prevent a specific commercial activity.

Citation?

Regards,

[NorthMountain]

The courts have ruled that a tax must have raising revenue as it’s principal objective.

That logic seems to go against the "transfer tax" on silencers, short-barrel rifles and shotguns, and machineguns.

There's no way that $200 tax, especially in 1934, was intended to generate revenue.