mergatroid
Marksman
.Suppose the NFA is amended to impose a tax of $5.00 per bullet for any round that can be fired in a modern firearm. While I agree that this case does not "stand for the proposition that something that violates the 2d Amendment is constitutional," what I am saying is that a court can easily use this case, and some of the cases cited therein, to make the argument that because it it a tax, and the constitution specifically gives congress the "power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises," (Art 1, Section 8) that it is constitutional irrespective of a burden on the exercise of our 2A rights.
You and I may agree that is completely wrong, but the door is certainly open to that if there are 5 progressives on the Supreme Court.
What do you think?
Maybe this has already been covered, but I have a hard time thinking you could divorce ammo from the "arm" as you suggest.