More proof that carry licensing and the NFA are unconstitutional?

[Hammerhead]

I was reading through my FB feed today when an interesting picture popped up with a quote from a Supreme Court case. I decided to look up the case so that I could verify that the quote was in fact true. The case was not about firearms (neither was the image it was quoted in) but from my layman's reading of the court decision, it really should be applied to not only the licensing or permitting that states have been shoving onto us. Another application of this decision would be to nullify the NFA and it's restrictions.

I present to you portions of Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105.

It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant [319 U.S. 105, 113] if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax – a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution. Thus, it may not exact a license tax for the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce...although it may tax the property used in, or the income derived from, that commerce, so long as those taxes are not discriminatory.

It is claimed, however, that the ultimate question in determining the constitutionality of this license tax is whether the state has given something for which it can ask a return. That principle has wide applicability. State Tax Commission v. Aldrich, 316 U.S. 174, 62 S.Ct. 1008, 139 A.L.R. 1436, and cases cited. But it is quite irrelevant here. This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the federal constitution.

The gist of the case is a tax and registration on the exercise of the 1st Amendment freedoms of religion and the press, but the statements I quoted are easily applied to the 2nd. Any tax on a right guaranteed by the Constitution goes against all the protections the Constitution define.

Constitutional carry is the law of the land and should be easily upheld when presented with this case law. The NFA and it's tax and registration scheme should be nullified, and any tax or payment to exercise our constitutionally protected rights are unconstitutional.

Thoughts?

 

[LPMan59]

a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution.

eff that noise

 

[japartridge]

a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution.

eff that noise

I'm confused by your comment... are you actually in disagreement of the above ruling? This ruling basically gives us a legal president to overturn all taxes or fees associated with firearms, besides sales and or income tax! How could you be a firearm owner and not be for that?

 

[Hammerhead]

Correct. They're saying that a license tax tries to make it a privilege and it's not, it's a right and can't be taxed.

 

[LPMan59]

A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution.

I dont like the idea of a court saying a right is granted by Constitution. Guaranteed, yes. Granted? negative.

Arguing semantics? Maybe

 

[AlphaSig112]

A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution.

I dont like the idea of a court saying a right is granted by Constitution. Guaranteed, yes. Granted? negative.

Arguing semantics? Maybe

I get it. Good point but still this is an interesting legal statute.

 

[Hohn]

Fascinating. It's hard to read that decision and come to any conclusion other than a tax on a right guaranteed under the Constitution is illegal.

Hence, 2A taxes/fees are illegal.