Keep in mind...I'm no Constitutional Scholar....but...

[Patronus]

And you will have the option of giving up your guns or paying the "tax" stamp to keep them. All options are simply steps down the road to total control.

 

[T-Roy]

Right...because if I buy a Windham Weaponery AR, you're immediately dealing with interstate commerce....so this is where I am going with this....let's say C3 builds an AR completely in-house and sells it to me...where are we then?

Montana is currently fighting the atf on this with regards to supressors. They passed a law that basically said "supressors made in Montana, stamped for Montana use only, that never leave the state aren't subject to federal regulation. " last time I looked it up the fed was still fighting them. The same premise would apply to firearms. But I think C3 would have to find an in state source for barrels and bolts, it can't be assembled in GA, it has to be manufactured in GA.

 

[rOmiLaYu]

And you will have the option of giving up your guns or paying the "tax" stamp to keep them. All options are simply steps down the road to total control.

But with Obama Care, if I already have health insurance, I don't have to pay the "tax" so I don't see how your arguement follows.

 

[Patronus]

Guess it doesn't. you must be right. Besides the SC already declared forced purchasing by federal edict to be constitutional. I'm sure the Feinstein gun ban will be declared constitutional by the same court.

 

[jwc0305]

Keep the e-mail going to your congressional rep and U.S. Senators, and speak loudly!!

 

[rOmiLaYu]

Guess it doesn't. you must be right. Besides the SC already declared forced purchasing by federal edict to be constitutional. I'm sure the Feinstein gun ban will be declared constitutional by the same court.

No, they viewed as a tax, not commerce....I think the gun ban is/would be different. There's no way to rule private party sales as a tax....it's commerce plain and simple.

 

[Patronus]

Well, you're the constitutional scholar.

 

[rOmiLaYu]

Well, you're the constitutional scholar.

No need to get snippy

I just don't see how the two fit together, one is "taxing not doing something" the other is "limiting commerce?" No?

 

[T-Roy]

Guess it doesn't. you must be right. Besides the SC already declared forced purchasing by federal edict to be constitutional. I'm sure the Feinstein gun ban will be declared constitutional by the same court.

Actually they didn't, they called it a tax and therefore legal. I know, I can call cat piss rosewater, but that don't make it smell any better....

 

[1coolhand]

But with Obama Care, if I already have health insurance, I don't have to pay the "tax" so I don't see how your arguement follows.

They are looking at taxing the insurance we have through employment as income to pay for all the people who want their "free" healthcare.