What Gun Owners have been suffering since 1936 1934 with BATF will now be applied nation-wide with the IRS. Don’t pay eccentric taxes will get you arrested or burned and/or killed.
Remember Waco? Branch Davidians? Because they allegedly failed to pay a $200 tax per full automatic gun that the ATF never proved they existed, only that the Branch Davidians “could” build them, a raid was launched against them.
When it failed, they brought reinforcements and conducted a whole media campaign against the Branch Davidians accusing them of child molestation and drug trafficking while toning down to a minimum the guns angle. The Media never questioned why a federal tax agency dedicated to enforce taxes on Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was doing drug enforcement and local child abuse laws. Not one peep.
When they got tired of negotiating, they pushed the envelope and the nastiest reality TV show was seen in screens all over the USA.
And I am not going to delve on who started the fire. But the Fed did send the tanks that started to crush the compound. And I won’t even say yeah or nay about the adults inside the compound. But over 20 children died in the fire and that I cannot stomach ever.
And all this for a $200 tax stamp. An “Individual Mandate” imposed by the Federal Government in 1934.
The ten most dangerous words in the English language are “Hi, I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”
RONALD REAGAN, remarks to Future Farmers of America, Jul. 28, 1988
Remember in November.
PS: Guy Fawkes was a pussy.
PS2: The book is out of print so the few examples out there are expensive, but one must read Unintended Consequences by John Ross. You local Library may have it, but I doubt it. Ask Amazon to make it available in Kindle format.
I have it in epub format. Great book!
A minor correction: The National Firearms Act was passed in 1934, the Federal Firearms Act (requiring a Federal Firearms License to engage in commerce in handguns) was passed in 1938.
Going back to the Bailey v. Drexel case from 1919, he court had held that a tax which was so burdensome that it raised no revenue, was not a tax at all, but a prohibition, and thus not valid.
Then, in 1953, The Court held in United States v. Kahriger, which was a gambling case, “Unless there are [penalty] provisions extraneous to any tax need, courts are without authority to limit the exercise of the taxing power.” That means that any tax measure Congress passes is presumed to be valid.
This ruling now gives Congress the power to coerce behavior of any type and in anyway, as long as they claim it to be a tax measure. In the above piece, you are correct.
Correction made… Much appreciated.
Yes, so through the Obamacare ruling (may all the majority justices burn in hell); any other crazy, intrusive, tyrannical scheme that Congress will now pass can be forced on us by the provision of a large or punitive tax for failure to comply. I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, however, the Bailey v. Drexel case probably would apply. It would force behavior desired by the government and would still be paid by many to escape it.
If they want us to eat broccoli so we stay healthy to keep Obamacare costs down, can they do it? Sure, the next law could be a tax of $5000 for failure to follow such a new hypothetical legislation.
Hypothetically, what if Congress critters can be bought off by a medical imaging device company that has cancer causing radiation? The goal is for “rent-seeking” legislation to be passed for U.S. citizens to submit to a “full body scan” with it and they are charged a “tax” of $10,000 annually otherwise. Laughable you say? Just look at the “nude-o-scanners” at the airports, which was a sweetheart insider deal (i.e. crony capitalism).
So, if our liberal friends think that the SCOTUS is so wonderful with this ruling, remember, these are just nine people who make mistakes. The only rulings that we should respect are those that are consistent with the U.S. Constitution and last time I checked, compulsion or taxation choice, does not comport with the principles of it.
The SCOTUS threw the gates wide open for all sorts of abuses. I rank this decision up there with other stupid and horrible ones because of them ignoring the plain language and interpretation of the Constitution:
1) Kilo v. City of New London (eminent domain abuse)
2) Plessy v. Ferguson (stinks from a mile away, duoh!)
3) Roe v. Wade (create a “right” out of whole cloth, attacks Federalism)
Conversely, The Heller and McDonald decisions are clearly reasonable since the Second Amendment is there in plain view. Only an idiot would say that we lack the right to keep and bear arms, however, we had four justices ignore this. Pathetic.
It is a dark day in America. I foresee being forced to pay for someone’s abortions, pay for transgender operations, personally be denied some medical care because it will be too expensive, watch the pharmaceutical industry die (government controls both the approval and reimbursement process), and have my personal beliefs violated regarding euthanasia (via end of life “counseling”), facilitating abortion (forced to provide this service through my profession), and denial of care to groups deemed low priority (the elderly first comes to mind).
Get the government out of healthcare! Repeal this hideous legislation.
Oops, Bailey v Drexel would NOT apply was my thought. Typo…
The only hope now is that since it’s been classified as a tax, that’s the last recourse is to amend the tax code to write it out.
We can indeed write it out….but Miguel is 100% correct, this keeps the door wide open, and if we ever fall asleep on the ramparts the Visigoths will storm the gates.
Obamacare is the LEAST of our concerns now….
[…] has an interesting and upsetting post up. He points out that the NFA is now legally very similar to Obamacare. Its a tax, not a ban, nor a […]
Unintended Consequences is available from The Firing Line as a PDF.
http://thefiringline.com/Misc/library/Consequences.pdf
With John Ross’ approval?