Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

melm00se

(5,082 posts)
5. Again true
Tue Apr 19, 2016, 12:31 PM
Apr 2016

but I would take your assertion even further by stating that Heller decision also stated that the 2nd amendment is not an unlimited right. This meant that laws restricting concealed carry as well as other restrictions (like no firearms for felons, the mentally ill as well as no firearms in certain kinds of facilities) were, in fact, Constitutional.

The above mentioned excise tax, however, is not limited to Constitutionally permissible restrictions but rather the possession of all handguns regardless if carried or kept in the home. That would fall under the category of a Constitutional no-no.

Additionally, Heller stated that handguns are arms for the purposes of the 2nd amendment and the Heller decision certainly influenced the Radich v. Guerrero decision in the CNMI which found the ban on handguns in the North Marianas Islands was unconstitutional. While this recently passed law is an attempt to circumvent this decision, it will more than likely be struck down as “(a)n unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy" once the case finds itself in front of the Supreme Court (regardless of its ideological make up as a ruling that allows for the passage of a tax on a clearly enumerated right opens up a really big can of worms that could come back and bite us all on the ass maybe not now but 10, 20 30 years down the road).

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Administration defends ne...»Reply #5