TexasCHLforum.com

chabouk wrote:

MechAg94 wrote:

chabouk wrote:The $200 NFA tax imposed in 1934 is no different than a poll tax, or requiring a fee to exercise free speech.

I was thinking about that $200 tax. I saw on an inflation calculator that $200 in 1934 is almost $3300 in today's dollar.

It amounted to a 100% tax on the Thompson submachinegun, which cost roughly $200 at the time.

Of course, it amounted to a thousand percent tax on sawed-off shotguns.

Actually I'd have no problem with that then. I've read that LEO prices for full auto AR-15 are in the $1500 range, so with a 100% tax, that would make them $3000. That's far less than the current $15,000-20,000 prices for a registered lower.

NFA tax should be the same amount as the poll tax.

Since 1897, the court has held, with no discernible principle, that some rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are sufficiently fundamental to be "incorporated" but others are not. This doctrine bears the oxymoronic name of "substantive due process." Substance is what process questions are not about.

George F. Will chimes in for incorporation of the Second Amendment under the Privileges or Immunities clause:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02873.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bump for todays news.... Now I most likely am reading everything wrong but did SCOTUS make the ruling based off P&I?

rob845 wrote:Bump for todays news.... Now I most likely am reading everything wrong but did SCOTUS make the ruling based off P&I?

I read it as Due Process. But I am not a Lawyer, for sure.

Ashlar wrote: For those not in the know, strict scrutiny means that any infringement of a right must meet certain criteria:
1. Must serve a compelling government interest- this interest must be necessary or crucial, not just preferred. This interest must be concrete, not a generalization or vague 'maintain order' kind of interest.
2. Must be narrowly tailored- it must target the compelling interest squarely. Too broad, and it fails this test.
3. Must be the least restrictive means- Another less restrictive means must not exist that achieves the same compelling interest.

I understand that "strict scrutiny" was missing from the Heller decision. Very good to be in here.
Then there two avenues I would look to in Texas.
One is Texas' law that holds that they make make the rules about bearing of arms with a view to control crime. Rather omnibus, imho..
We are repeatedly told in Austin that we are allowed permission, not a privilege.

The second is the "no lesser restrictive avenue must exist". The Motorist Protection Act allows for concealed carry with no licensing. I am wondering if this the niche our legislators might be encouraged to adapt for all legal carry.

Purplehood wrote:

rob845 wrote:Bump for todays news.... Now I most likely am reading everything wrong but did SCOTUS make the ruling based off P&I?

I read it as Due Process. But I am not a Lawyer, for sure.

Yes, it is Due Process. P&I got eviscerated by Scalia from the bench during the hearing back in March.

grad_Student wrote:I'd just like to add the Gura's "privileges or immunities" argument might have been the worst argument to come with. There hasn't been a successful "privileges or immunities" clause argument since 1873. As a first year law student you learn that it hasn't worked in a 140 years so it's very doubtful that the argument would work this go-round. I did enjoy Gura's attempt at getting the Second amendment incorporated in the 14th through it, but darn, he wasted most of time by even bringing up the issue.

Before you close your mind on that, take the time to read Justice Thomas' concurring opinion. He writes at great length explaining that the Privileges and Immunities clause SHOULD be the rationale for all such decisions and mourns the fact that the court did not take this opportunity to do so.

I think he is correct, and his opinion may well influence future court decisions.