TexasCHLforum.com

I was doing some research for another subject and I ran across this-

http://law.jrank.org/pages/12734/Minnea ... z0ythKIJzN" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Minnesota levied a tax on newsprint and ink used in newspapers. Not incidentally, not as a byproduct of other taxes, but specifically aimed at the newspaper media.

It was ruled an unconstitutional infringement of the first amendment. 'Generating revenue' was an insufficient reason for the infringement.

Now that Heller and McDonald have recognized, finally, an individual 'fundamental' right, applicable to the states and localities, does that 11% excise tax we all pay still work, constitutionally?

This is one tax I do support, along with most of the shooting sports industry. The reason for that is that this tax generates revenue that goes directly to funding wildlife conservation, which in turn supports hunting. Based on established cases I would say that this tax would stand a good chance of going away after a court ruling, but lets not kill this one.

Oh I support it, as it is.. if some dim-bulb in congress gets a wild hare, though, and thinks to try to impose a 'sin' tax like on cigarettes to try to deter posession and use.. watch out.

G.A. Heath wrote:This is one tax I do support, along with most of the shooting sports industry. The reason for that is that this tax generates revenue that goes directly to funding wildlife conservation, which in turn supports hunting. Based on established cases I would say that this tax would stand a good chance of going away after a court ruling, but lets not kill this one.

Since when where it goes is guaranteed, it will go into a general funds along with the SS money and many other funds earmarked for some reason and they will spend it anyway they want.

suthdj wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:This is one tax I do support, along with most of the shooting sports industry. The reason for that is that this tax generates revenue that goes directly to funding wildlife conservation, which in turn supports hunting. Based on established cases I would say that this tax would stand a good chance of going away after a court ruling, but lets not kill this one.

Since when where it goes is guaranteed, it will go into a general funds along with the SS money and many other funds earmarked for some reason and they will spend it anyway they want.

Pittman Robertson Act of 1937, as amended.

Chas.

Ashlar wrote:Now that Heller and McDonald have recognized, finally, an individual 'fundamental' right, applicable to the states and localities, does that 11% excise tax we all pay still work, constitutionally?

Only if the Minnesota tax on newsprint and ink used in newspapers is also constitutional, as well as special excise taxes on Bibles and other religious material...

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

suthdj wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:This is one tax I do support, along with most of the shooting sports industry. The reason for that is that this tax generates revenue that goes directly to funding wildlife conservation, which in turn supports hunting. Based on established cases I would say that this tax would stand a good chance of going away after a court ruling, but lets not kill this one.

Since when where it goes is guaranteed, it will go into a general funds along with the SS money and many other funds earmarked for some reason and they will spend it anyway they want.

Pittman Robertson Act of 1937, as amended.

Chas.

So why is Soc Sec going broke?

suthdj wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Pittman Robertson Act of 1937, as amended.

Chas.

So why is Soc Sec going broke?

The Pittman Robertson Act makes sure that the excise tax goes toward specific purposes and doesn't get dumped into the same bucket as everything else- it has nothing to do with SS or any other general fund.

Here's a good read on it- http://www.nraila.net/issues/FactSheets ... spx?ID=103" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I still don't understand why my decisions to protect myself forces me to subsidize hunters and fisherfolks. That are mostly in other states. Maybe if they helped build some shooting ranges or bought guns for the poor.

Support for conservation is a laudible thing. Governments engage in it through taxes and spending. Private groups (eg. Ducks Unlimited, for one) also engage in it. Private landowners also engage in it. Fine. A worthy goal.

The question is whether an excise tax on guns and ammo is constitutional. I don't think it is. There have been a lot of statutes passed that are not constitutional. Their well-intentioned purposes beg the question whether they are constitutional. Just as a poll tax infringes on the right to vote, an excise tax on arms infringes on our second amendment constitional right. Best to look for another way to fund worthy conservation efforts.