Obvious implications for the NFA. The NFA was enacted as a tax because courts/congress of its day didn’t see the commerce clause as applicable. I suppose they could set the cost of the tax stamp as $0, but argue they still need the regulations.
On January 25, 2024 at 6:17 pm, X said:
Yep. John Marshall ruled that “the power to tax is the power to destroy” in McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819.
If that’s so, then why has the NFA been on the books for 90 years? NOTHING in the Bill of Rights should be subject to taxation of any kind. Can you imagine a federal Bible tax? A federal church tax? A federal assembly tax? A federal lawyer tax? A federal newspaper tax? A federal petition tax?
This article is filed under the category(s) Second Amendment and was published January 24th, 2024 by Herschel Smith.
If you're interested in what else the The Captain's Journal has to say, you might try thumbing through the archives and visiting the main index, or; perhaps you would like to learn more about TCJ.
On January 25, 2024 at 1:40 pm, scott s. said:
Obvious implications for the NFA. The NFA was enacted as a tax because courts/congress of its day didn’t see the commerce clause as applicable. I suppose they could set the cost of the tax stamp as $0, but argue they still need the regulations.
On January 25, 2024 at 6:17 pm, X said:
Yep. John Marshall ruled that “the power to tax is the power to destroy” in McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819.
If that’s so, then why has the NFA been on the books for 90 years? NOTHING in the Bill of Rights should be subject to taxation of any kind. Can you imagine a federal Bible tax? A federal church tax? A federal assembly tax? A federal lawyer tax? A federal newspaper tax? A federal petition tax?
Why, then, do we have federal gun taxes?