Friday, November 21, 2014

Interview: Meet the Man Suing Eric Holder and the ATF

Since 1934, certain firearms (and non-firearms) are registered and taxed by the government. When you go to purchase a suppressor, which by itself is only defined as a “firearm” because our government says it is, you must pay a $200 tax, file paperwork with the government, and then wait 6 to 9 months for the BATFE to “approve” the paperwork and register that device in your name. The same thing occurs with a machinegun. But why, you probably want to ask, if the 2nd Amendment protects, as Justice Scalia said in Heller, “all instruments that constitute bearable arms,” how can the government mandate a tax on a right like this? Why not a tax to vote? Why not a tax to send an email? Why not a tax to go to church?


rexxhead said...

Fedguv taxes firearms under its presumed power granted to "regulate interstate commerce" (1787). Now, everyone here knows that "to regulate" doesn't mean "strangle with red tape", but rather "adjust to proper operation", so I won't be preachin' that sermon. It's all too obvious to those with even a little brain mated to even a little integrity that the Writers meant that power to be used to create The Free Trade Zone Of The United States.

But it's a fundamental precept of jurisprudence that later law trumps earlier law. So even if it turns out that Congress DID have the power to tax firearms moving in interstate commerce (a very highly suspect assumption), the second amendment (1791) revoked that power.

DAN III said...

I'm glad that someone is suing the bastard Holder and BATFE. However,does anyone here understand how MUCH it costs to sue ? People throw around the phrase "just sue 'em" likes it's effing popcorn. Well, the .gov gets away with much because the common man just cannot afford to fight for his rights in the courts before the black-robed bastards.

Mogrith said...

Just a reminder. $200 in 1934 is ~$3500 in todays dollars. the tax was supposed to be very onerous.

Anonymous said...

Scalia wrote CLEARLY that the Second Article of Amendment DOES revoke the power to decide !!

A real question to ask here, is, why the NRA is not leading this fight but instead being drug along, kicking and screaming, as it was regarding gunwalker!

Let's hope private Citizens continue to bring these kinds of suits. Judicial remedy is the final chance we have left absent CW2.

Anonymous said...

As John Ross has pointed out all this came about due to Federal Agents needing some thing to do once Prohibition was repealed. Thousands of agents were going to be laid off, but the new gun laws would keep them employed. The "War on Drugs" was a similar employment project.

Anonymous said...'s gonna cost big time.

Here's a funding link for donations:

Anonymous said...

I'm waiting for some bright attorney to remember Crandall v. Nevada 73 U.S. 35 (1868). The specific issue was the right to travel, but the broader implication is that the states (and fedgov) can't tax ANY right.