Mariana Islands Pass $1,000 Handgun Tax After Outright Ban Declared Unconstitutional

[rangerrebew]

 Mariana Islands Pass $1,000 Handgun Tax After Outright Ban Declared Unconstitutional
Posted By Stephen Gutowski On April 8, 2016 @ 4:44 pm In Issues | No Comments

The legislature in the Mariana Islands moved to impose a $1,000 excise tax on all handguns sold in the U.S. territory on Wednesday.

The legislation comes after a federal court struck down its handgun ban late last month. On March 28, Ramona Manglona, chief judge of the District Court of the Northern Mariana Islands, struck down the island chain’s law against handgun ownership and some of the restrictions it imposes on other kinds of firearm ownership. The judge, an Obama appointee, said the ban was in violation of the Second Amendment.

The Mariana senate passed the $1,000 tax on all handguns unanimously.

“Before acting on the measure, Sen. Paul A. Manglona expressed support for the House amendment that will impose an excise tax of $1,000 per handgun,” the Marianas Variety said. “Manglona said this provision will go a long way toward reducing the number of guns coming into the islands.”

The bill also included a number of other gun control measures including establishing a number of gun free zones, gun storage requirements, and waiting periods. Some lawmakers did raise concern over possible legal action against the U.S. Territory in light of the new restrictions.

Gun rights activists slammed the tax as an attempt to destroy people’s gun rights.

“This is definitely a case of the power to tax is a power to destroy a right,” Alan Gottlieb, head of the Second Amendment Foundation which sued over the now defunct handgun ban, told Guns.com. “Most people in the CNMI cannot afford this tax and will not be able to exercise their rights.”

The bill now awaits the governor’s signature before it can become law.

 

Article printed from Washington Free Beacon: http://freebeacon.com

URL to article: http://freebeacon.com/issues/marianas-islands-pass-1000-gun-tax/

[Charlespg]

Mariana Islands Pass $1,000 Handgun Tax After Outright Ban Declared Unconstitutional
Posted By Stephen Gutowski On April 8, 2016 @ 4:44 pm In Issues | No Comments

The legislature in the Mariana Islands moved to impose a $1,000 excise tax on all handguns sold in the U.S. territory on Wednesday.

The legislation comes after a federal court struck down its handgun ban late last month. On March 28, Ramona Manglona, chief judge of the District Court of the Northern Mariana Islands, struck down the island chain’s law against handgun ownership and some of the restrictions it imposes on other kinds of firearm ownership. The judge, an Obama appointee, said the ban was in violation of the Second Amendment.

The Mariana senate passed the $1,000 tax on all handguns unanimously.

“Before acting on the measure, Sen. Paul A. Manglona expressed support for the House amendment that will impose an excise tax of $1,000 per handgun,” the Marianas Variety said. “Manglona said this provision will go a long way toward reducing the number of guns coming into the islands.”

The bill also included a number of other gun control measures including establishing a number of gun free zones, gun storage requirements, and waiting periods. Some lawmakers did raise concern over possible legal action against the U.S. Territory in light of the new restrictions.

Gun rights activists slammed the tax as an attempt to destroy people’s gun rights.

“This is definitely a case of the power to tax is a power to destroy a right,” Alan Gottlieb, head of the Second Amendment Foundation which sued over the now defunct handgun ban, told Guns.com. “Most people in the CNMI cannot afford this tax and will not be able to exercise their rights.”

The bill now awaits the governor’s signature before it can become law.

 

Article printed from Washington Free Beacon: http://freebeacon.com

URL to article: http://freebeacon.com/issues/marianas-islands-pass-1000-gun-tax/

Strip them of their public office and put them in a forced labor camp

[mountaineer]

Maybe Chicago's thugs will move to the Marianas, where the citizens are sitting ducks.

[MACVSOG68]

The bill also included a number of other gun control measures including establishing a number of gun free zones, gun storage requirements, and waiting periods. Some lawmakers did raise concern over possible legal action against the U.S. Territory in light of the new restrictions.

Ya think?   

[HonestJohn]

Strip them of their public office and put them in a forced labor camp

Only if I get to be the one deciding.  I promise to only send Americans to a forced labor camp... who truly deserve it.

 

[240B]

Chicago thugs will be there to sell them guns. The blackmarket in guns is going to explode.

[rangerrebew]

The Constitution says the "right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.  It seems to me an exorbitant tax on guns has "infringe" written all over it.  "Uunusual" punishments are illegal and it seems to me this is an unusual punishment which infringes on the right to bear arms as it only applies to gun owners and makes a presumption of some kind of guilt on gun owners though they are following the Constitution.

[MACVSOG68]

The Constitution says the "right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.  It seems to me an exorbitant tax on guns has "infringe" written all over it.  "Uunusual" punishments are illegal and it seems to me this is an unusual punishment which infringes on the right to bear arms as it only applies to gun owners and makes a presumption of some kind of guilt on gun owners though they are following the Constitution.

Yet another reason to think about the next three or so Supreme Court nominations.

[Charlespg]

 I saw  this discussed a while back on free republic   
 But  somebody astutely pointed out that that one of the major weakness of the US constitution is the lack of  a  punishment regarding politicians and judges  who routinely break the amendments


It would take a convention of states
but  I think an amendment thats says that this kind of crap either by state or federal  legislatures or politicians  will result  immediate and permanent forfeiture to hold  of any form of public office ,permanent forfeiture of the right to vote, a fine of not less then $2 million and ten years in jail  without parole or any form of pardon for life  ...  would be a start 

[Bill Cipher]

I saw  this discussed a while back on free republic   
 But  somebody astutely pointed out that that one of the major weakness of the US constitution is the lack of  a  punishment regarding politicians and judges  who routinely break the amendments


It would take a convention of states
but  I think an amendment thats says that this kind of crap either by state or federal  legislatures or politicians  will result  immediate and permanent forfeiture to hold  of any form of public office ,permanent forfeiture of the right to vote, a fine of not less then $2 million and ten years in jail  without parole or any form of pardon for life  ...  would be a start 

That won't happen in a million years.  Otherwise, if you suffered a concrete harm from a constitutional violation, you have section 1983. 

[Bill Cipher]

The Constitution says the "right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.  It seems to me an exorbitant tax on guns has "infringe" written all over it.  "Uunusual" punishments are illegal and it seems to me this is an unusual punishment which infringes on the right to bear arms as it only applies to gun owners and makes a presumption of some kind of guilt on gun owners though they are following the Constitution.

Why?  Congress has plenary power to tax, subject only to the limit on direct taxes and the requirement of geographic uniformity on rates of other taxes. 

[rangerrebew]

Why?  Congress has plenary power to tax, subject only to the limit on direct taxes and the requirement of geographic uniformity on rates of other taxes.

Operative words Congress, uniformity.  A $1,000 tax on only gun owners  doesn't bring to mind a picture of uniformity.  Congress has nothing to do with this.  Does it seem likely anyone would tolerate a $1,000 tax on gasoline lawnmowers and not on electric ones?  Why? It doesn't pass the sniff test.

[Bill Cipher]

Operative words Congress, uniformity.  A $1,000 tax on only gun owners  doesn't bring to mind a picture of uniformity.  Congress has nothing to do with this.  Does it seem likely anyone would tolerate a $1,000 tax on gasoline lawnmowers and not on electric ones?  Why? It doesn't pass the sniff test.

Uniformity under the Constitution only refers to the rates: the rate of a tax shouldn't vary by geography.  It doesn't apply to the subjects of tax, if they just happen to be unevenly distributed. 

If the tax is imposed by a locality, however, then not even the uniformity rule applies; the second amendment does not by itself prevent a tax like this.  Localities have even more plenary power than does Congress. 

[MACVSOG68]

Uniformity under the Constitution only refers to the rates: the rate of a tax shouldn't vary by geography.  It doesn't apply to the subjects of tax, if they just happen to be unevenly distributed. 

If the tax is imposed by a locality, however, then not even the uniformity rule applies; the second amendment does not by itself prevent a tax like this.  Localities have even more plenary power than does Congress.

If a power exists to a government entity, it cannot be used as a subterfuge to limit specific rights, in this case the Second Amendment.  States obviously have the power to tax, but the enactment of poll taxes had the goal of getting around the 15th Amendment and was thus found to be unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.  Would the courts find the same in this case?  I think so.

[Relic]

If a power exists to a government entity, it cannot be used as a subterfuge to limit specific rights, in this case the Second Amendment.  States obviously have the power to tax, but the enactment of poll taxes had the goal of getting around the 15th Amendment and was thus found to be unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.  Would the courts find the same in this case?  I think so.

Once Hillary takes office and gets her USSC nominee passed, I'm not so sure the outcome would be what you expect.

[Bill Cipher]

If a power exists to a government entity, it cannot be used as a subterfuge to limit specific rights, in this case the Second Amendment.  States obviously have the power to tax, but the enactment of poll taxes had the goal of getting around the 15th Amendment and was thus found to be unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.  Would the courts find the same in this case?  I think so.

I tend to disagree.  Taxation is not the same thing as poll taxes.  First, taxation has always been accorded wider latitude.  Second, taxation doesn't trigger the same race-related issues poll taxes do.

In 1934 the Congress in the National Firearms Act imposed a tax of $200 on a variety of firearms.  In 2015 dollars that was about $3,500.  Quite a prohibitive tax.  The registration requirements were later gutted, but not on second amendment grounds, and I think the tax still stands. 

[MACVSOG68]

I tend to disagree.  Taxation is not the same thing as poll taxes.  First, taxation has always been accorded wider latitude.  Second, taxation doesn't trigger the same race-related issues poll taxes do.

In 1934 the Congress in the National Firearms Act imposed a tax of $200 on a variety of firearms.  In 2015 dollars that was about $3,500.  Quite a prohibitive tax.  The registration requirements were later gutted, but not on second amendment grounds, and I think the tax still stands.

I think that covered automatic weapons which still has a number of restrictions including a licensing requirement, to the best of my knowledge, never successfully challenged.  But the similarity to poll taxes would be that the power to tax nevertheless prohibited a government agency from using that to hinder the lawful registration to vote under the 15th Amendment.  It was a 14th Amendment challenge (equal protection), and laws can't be used however much within the power otherwise, to hinder a right under the Constitution.  In this case, the Islands tried to ban handguns and that attempt was found to be unconstitutional.  They then moved to an outrageous tax.  The linkage is too obvious.  I know that's how I would challenge it anyway.  I've given up on predicting how the USSC might approach it.  An effort by DC to keep guns out the hands of lawful owners was tried by sneaking around outright legal ownership to outrageous "safety" laws.  The High Court said it was just an attempt to get around the 2d Amendment, and thus unconstitutional. 

[MACVSOG68]

Once Hillary takes office and gets her USSC nominee passed, I'm not so sure the outcome would be what you expect.

Completely agree!  That means everything for a generation or more.

[Bill Cipher]

I think that covered automatic weapons which still has a number of restrictions including a licensing requirement, to the best of my knowledge, never successfully challenged.  But the similarity to poll taxes would be that the power to tax nevertheless prohibited a government agency from using that to hinder the lawful registration to vote under the 15th Amendment.  It was a 14th Amendment challenge (equal protection), and laws can't be used however much within the power otherwise, to hinder a right under the Constitution.  In this case, the Islands tried to ban handguns and that attempt was found to be unconstitutional.  They then moved to an outrageous tax.  The linkage is too obvious.  I know that's how I would challenge it anyway.  I've given up on predicting how the USSC might approach it.  An effort by DC to keep guns out the hands of lawful owners was tried by sneaking around outright legal ownership to outrageous "safety" laws.  The High Court said it was just an attempt to get around the 2d Amendment, and thus unconstitutional. 

The link may be obvious, but that may not be determinative because you can still own a firearm so long as you're willing to commit the capital needed to pay the tax.  $1,000 may be a lot, but it's not prohibitive the way that a ban on ownership is.  My bet would be on the tax being sustained. 

[rangerrebew]

Just a random, strange thought  (I admit) but could strippers be charged an extra "pole" tax?

[Bill Cipher]

Just a random, strange thought  (I admit) but could strippers be charged an extra "pole" tax?

Wouldn't that be stripping them of their rights?

[rangerrebew]

Wouldn't that be stripping them of their rights?