Is it legal to tax guns?

[Sunburn74]

Would it be legal for state goverments to apply management strategies used to curb tobacco use and apply them to gun violence?

For example, if states were to calculate the cost to society of one years worth of gun violence (attach a fixed cost to each human life [the government already does this for example with civilian deaths in wars for compensation purposes], add up all the physical damages to environments , etc) and then create a gun sale and gun ownership specific tax (for example in my city I pay a tax purely for car ownership to the city which is how they try and curb car use in an increasingly congested city) that covers 200% of those costs is that legal?

Can they just decide to tax gun ownership to make it increasingly cost prohibitive to even own a gun?

 

[balloonshark]

I don't like this idea as it favors people with money. How about a tax or a ban on the more deadlier weapons and accessories? I personally prefer the ban since there should be no need for people in a free country to have the same or similar damn equipment as our military.

 

[purbeast0]

Just do what Chris Rock suggests and charge $5k per bullet.

 

[cytg111]

How about mandatory insurance? Like mandatory vehicle insurance?
And If law so happens to find a gun without insurance, its confiscated. Should help put a lit on the # of guns around.

 

[trenchfoot]

Would it be legal for state goverments to apply management strategies used to curb tobacco use and apply them to gun violence?

For example, if states were to calculate the cost to society of one years worth of gun violence (attach a fixed cost to each human life [the government already does this for example with civilian deaths in wars for compensation purposes], add up all the physical damages to environments , etc) and then create a gun sale and gun ownership specific tax (for example in my city I pay a tax purely for car ownership to the city which is how they try and curb car use in an increasingly congested city) that covers 200% of those costs is that legal?

Can they just decide to tax gun ownership to make it increasingly cost prohibitive to even own a gun?

If you go the car route, then mandatory education, permitting and testing for qualification along with annual paid registration and mandatory insurance coverage for damages done by the owner/user of the firearm is the comparative scenario.

I own firearms and I'd be good with that, thinking along the lines that owning firearms is a right but not the unrestricted use and exchange of ownership of them.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Just do what Chris Rock suggests and charge $5k per bullet.

And that would be struck down because it's a bald face attempt to deny people an effective right firearm use. Imagine a tax on polling? We had that and it was struck down for the same reasons.

 

[purbeast0]

And that would be struck down because it's a bald face attempt to deny people an effective right firearm use. Imagine a tax on polling? We had that and it was struck down for the same reasons.

It was a joke dummy.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It was a joke dummy.

OK clever boy.

 

[Fenixgoon]

If you go the car route, then mandatory education, permitting and testing for qualification along with annual paid registration and mandatory insurance coverage for damages done by the owner/user of the firearm is the comparative scenario.

I own firearms and I'd be good with that, thinking along the lines that owning firearms is a right but not the unrestricted use and exchange of ownership of them.

cars are operated on public roadways, which lets the state regulate them more heavily. the state has limited reach when it comes to operating a vehicle on private property (kids can race cars and motorcycles on private courses, for example). in an analogous fashion, concealed or open carry in public is very much regulated by the state, whereas regulating usage on private property is not nearly as stringent.

that being said, i'd be down for mandatory training - god knows people could use it. setting up a system to monitor and qualify people would be tricky in the sense that if you do any meaningful training (not a 5 minute online safety course), that becomes resource-intensive. there was a post a while back with a link to having anyone wanting a firearm to enlist in the national guard. i think that's a win-win as well (it's an "out-there" solution, but honestly a pretty sensible one).

as to the OP's question, i've wondered this myself, as you are taxing the exercising of a right. but i think the catch is that exercising that right involves the purchasing of goods, and so can be taxed. voting OTOH, has no such transaction involving goods, which means any sort of voting tax is explicitly taxing the exercising of the right itself.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

How about mandatory insurance? Like mandatory vehicle insurance?
And If law so happens to find a gun without insurance, its confiscated. Should help put a lit on the # of guns around.

You probably couldn't do it per firearm since that would amount to registration which gets iffy. Would make sense to insure for different classes of firearms though--shotgun, pistol, semi vs bolt rifle or fixed vs detachable mag rifle, automatic. Not sure how much good any of this would do though, there'd still be a lot of unisured firearms out there and a fraction of the opportunity to enforce compared to autos.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Sin tax will fix gun violence problems. Why didn't they think of this?

Bonus points for the end of your post, trying to find a way to squeeze a right out of existence by kinda going around the constitution and using a little out of the box thinking. Nice.

 

[Sunburn74]

You probably couldn't do it per firearm since that would amount to registration which gets iffy. Would make sense to insure for different classes of firearms though--shotgun, pistol, semi vs bolt rifle or fixed vs detachable mag rifle, automatic. Not sure how much good any of this would do though, there'd still be a lot of unisured firearms out there and a fraction of the opportunity to enforce compared to autos.

One can also tax the ownership of the item (ie as long as you are a registered gun owner you must pay 100 dollars annually to the state to cover societal wide gun related problems). Like I said in my city I pay an auto excise tax which basically is a tax the city imposed to cover the costs it expends related to car related issues like street cleaning, road salting, parking maintenance, smog and etc . Or like home property taxes which are a persistent tax people pay despite having bought the home (and a significant deterrent to home purchases in many areas).

Poll taxes were a tax to use your right to vote as distributed by the government.
These would be taxes specific to a privately bought item you are buying of your own free will. I think if you honestly say these taxes are illegal then you'd be arguing that no taxes (ie sales tax for example) are legal when it comes to weapons. But then how far do you go? Can knives be taxed? Rocks? If someone argued that their baseball bat, car, or even lifestyle (MMA fighter ) were weapons and thus should also be exempt from taxes would you support that?

 

[Skel]

I don't like this idea as it favors people with money. How about a tax or a ban on the more deadlier weapons and accessories? I personally prefer the ban since there should be no need for people in a free country to have the same or similar damn equipment as our military.

They already have this. NFA items, suppressors and others items, are taxed by the requirement of a special non-transferable tax stamp.

How about mandatory insurance? Like mandatory vehicle insurance?
And If law so happens to find a gun without insurance, its confiscated. Should help put a lit on the # of guns around.

As pointed out with the post I quoted above, you'd only be making sure people with less money didn't have access to them.

 

[digiram]

Just do what Chris Rock suggests and charge $5k per bullet.

hahaha.. one of my fav. Chris Rock acts.

We need bullet control not gun control.

 

[zzyzxroad]

Sin tax will fix gun violence problems. Why didn't they think of this?
Bonus points for the end of your post, trying to find a way to squeeze a right out of existence by kinda going around the constitution and using a little out of the box thinking. Nice.

Bonus points to you if you can tell us where you got that info about how so far China has paid the vast majority of the tariffs.

 

[Greenman]

Lots of really good ideas, the end result of most of them being the gentrification of gun ownership.

 

[shortylickens]

yeah you gotta look closer at the constitution. it only protects the right to bear arms. doesn't say anything specific about WHERE you can carry or how you can acquire them.

 

[Skel]

yeah you gotta look closer at the constitution. it only protects the right to bear arms. doesn't say anything specific about WHERE you can carry or how you can acquire them.

Which is why states have "gun free zones", and why FFLs exist. It does get murky real quick in regards to some of scope of that though. In 2015 the courts ruled that you couldn't do a ban of an entire city. I'm also not sure you could really ban FFLs... I can see more limits/requirements, but I would be shocked if a law was able to stand up limiting access to arms that we have the rights to. Not without reexamining 2A to begin with.. which is where most of this should start anyways.

 

[SMOGZINN]

These would be taxes specific to a privately bought item you are buying of your own free will. I think if you honestly say these taxes are illegal then you'd be arguing that no taxes (ie sales tax for example) are legal when it comes to weapons. But then how far do you go? Can knives be taxed? Rocks? If someone argued that their baseball bat, car, or even lifestyle (MMA fighter ) were weapons and thus should also be exempt from taxes would you support that?

If you are going to go there that rabbit hole goes a lot deeper than that. If you can't tax something you have a right to can you tax the sale of a news paper? Doesn't that run afoul of the 1st? What about painting, or hell, painting supplies? Wouldn't it be valid to say that paint/pens/paper etc. is to free speech what bullets are to the right to bear arms? It would basically undermine the entire sales tax code altogether since you could simply claim any specific purchase will be used for a protected freedom and therefore can't be taxes.

I'm going to use this car as an artistic expression of my political views, therefore you can't tax it.

 

[glenn1]

If you are going to go there that rabbit hole goes a lot deeper than that. If you can't tax something you have a right to can you tax the sale of a news paper? Doesn't that run afoul of the 1st? What about painting, or hell, painting supplies? Wouldn't it be valid to say that paint/pens/paper etc. is to free speech what bullets are to the right to bear arms? It would basically undermine the entire sales tax code altogether since you could simply claim any specific purchase will be used for a protected freedom and therefore can't be taxes.

I'm going to use this car as an artistic expression of my political views, therefore you can't tax it.

Depends on the level of taxation and the intent behind it. Guns are already subject to the sales tax where such taxes exist. Some non-zero amount of excise tax would probably not generate strident opposition from the 2A crowd so long as it was reasonable and used for something worthwhile (just to make up something, say a one-time $20 excise tax per weapon to pay for state provided firearms safety courses). So long as you're operating in good faith then "taxing guns" is fine, but if you're using it as an end-around to basically ban guns then it's not fine.

 

[Skel]

If you are going to go there that rabbit hole goes a lot deeper than that. If you can't tax something you have a right to can you tax the sale of a news paper? Doesn't that run afoul of the 1st? What about painting, or hell, painting supplies? Wouldn't it be valid to say that paint/pens/paper etc. is to free speech what bullets are to the right to bear arms? It would basically undermine the entire sales tax code altogether since you could simply claim any specific purchase will be used for a protected freedom and therefore can't be taxes.

I'm going to use this car as an artistic expression of my political views, therefore you can't tax it.

They already do have a special tax on some gun items (NFA), and as that's been around for a very long time I've little doubt that it passes as constitutional. The biggest issue with doing a special tax on all firearms this way would be you're making it that only rich people can afford to get them.

 

[SMOGZINN]

They already do have a special tax on some gun items (NFA), and as that's been around for a very long time I've little doubt that it passes as constitutional. The biggest issue with doing a special tax on all firearms this way would be you're making it that only rich people can afford to get them.

You might be making it so that only rich people can afford them, but the question is would that actually be unconstitutional, and if so how do we determine where the break point is? At that point the SCOTUS would be saying that the governments power to tax things are highly limited to 'not making it so that only rich people can afford things'. It would cause a avalanche of law suits as organizations start to claim that every sales tax is breaking that rule on every product since at that point the only arbiter of what is a legal tax and what is a unreasonable tax would be the courts.

Our tax system is based on the concept that taxation is based on representation. If the people want the taxes changed they will change the representatives. That is the real reason the poll taxes were deemed unconstitutional, because it attempted to prevent the people being taxed from having a say in the representation responsible for the tax.

 

[fskimospy]

And that would be struck down because it's a bald face attempt to deny people an effective right firearm use. Imagine a tax on polling? We had that and it was struck down for the same reasons.

Poll taxes were legal. The only reason they aren’t now is because there is an expressly written clause in a constitutional amendment saying they aren’t.

Broadly speaking though yes, we could just tax guns a bunch. There would be a limit as sufficiently high tax rates would be viewed as a back door ban, but we could definitely tax them much more than they are now.

It’s not a bad idea, either, as it would probably lower gun ownership rates.

 

[Skel]

You might be making it so that only rich people can afford them, but the question is would that actually be unconstitutional, and if so how do we determine where the break point is? At that point the SCOTUS would be saying that the governments power to tax things are highly limited to 'not making it so that only rich people can afford things'. It would cause a avalanche of law suits as organizations start to claim that every sales tax is breaking that rule on every product since at that point the only arbiter of what is a legal tax and what is a unreasonable tax would be the courts.

Our tax system is based on the concept that taxation is based on representation. If the people want the taxes changed they will change the representatives. That is the real reason the poll taxes were deemed unconstitutional, because it attempted to prevent the people being taxed from having a say in the representation responsible for the tax.

You have valid points, and I don't know where the line is. We can and do tax things at different rates.. which includes guns.. so I know we can do it. I just don't think it's the best idea to do them all firearms (not just those listed as NFA) at a special rate.

 

[fskimospy]

You might be making it so that only rich people can afford them, but the question is would that actually be unconstitutional, and if so how do we determine where the break point is? At that point the SCOTUS would be saying that the governments power to tax things are highly limited to 'not making it so that only rich people can afford things'. It would cause a avalanche of law suits as organizations start to claim that every sales tax is breaking that rule on every product since at that point the only arbiter of what is a legal tax and what is a unreasonable tax would be the courts.

Our tax system is based on the concept that taxation is based on representation. If the people want the taxes changed they will change the representatives. That is the real reason the poll taxes were deemed unconstitutional, because it attempted to prevent the people being taxed from having a say in the representation responsible for the tax.

The real reason poll taxes were deemed unconstitutional is this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

They were legal before that.