# The PROFITS, My Dear! Gun Makers Cash IN!!!
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502
**Category:** The BBQ Pit
**Created:** [July 9, 2016, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502 "2016-07-09T21:10:25Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 4
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/61 "2016-07-11T13:17:09Z")
> [@wolfpup](#):
>
> Probably just what you might imagine would happen. But not if it was 20% or 40%.
It might be tricky, but I think the standard would be: Does this tax serve a legitimate state interest, or is it intended to make it more difficult to purchase a gun? If the latter, then no-go. If you just went in to court with “Well, we thought that would be a good rate”, I suspect your case would be thrown out. If you detailed some “cost to society” that you were trying offset, then that might fly.
> [@](#):
>
> And I don’t know how abortions became a standard of comparison other than just being “something conservatives don’t like”, since abortions aren’t requested arbitrarily or on some whim and don’t have price-driven demand.
Several reasons, one of which I brought up in post #33. But it serves as a good sounding board since it’s a cherished right by the left, and the tactics used by the right to limit abortions are similar-- i.e., an attempt to limit abortions without there being a legitimate state interest.
---
### Author:  [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/62 "2016-07-11T14:17:45Z")
> [@wolfpup](#):
>
> The consequence of cars is transportation. The consequence of guns is someone or something being shot and probably killed. Seems to be what they’re for. Which is why guns in America is such a huge national problem that some seem completely blind to.
You could more easily argue that the consequence of guns is recreation, hunting, target shooting, home defense, law enforcement and collectibility. I’d be willing to bet that 99.99% (or more) of all guns and ammunition sold have only been used for those law-abiding and peaceful uses.
That’s the thing- people are freaking the hell out because 12 cops got killed. It’s tragic, but about 9-10 times that number are killed each day across the country in car crashes, and we just accept that as a matter of course.
In fact, in a 2 day period, more people are killed in car crashes (~180) than total policemen killed in the line of duty over an entire year (~130). About three times as many people die in wrecks (30800) as are killed in homicides(11800), and about 1.5 times as many as die in firearm-related suicides (19392)
Hell, six times more people are murdered with knives each year(1836) than with rifles (351). Handguns account for the vast, vast majority of murders by gun or otherwise.
But apparently rifles are scary, so we have to freak out and run around like Chicken Little, without actually thinking about it or doing anything rational.
---
### Author:  [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/63 "2016-07-11T15:35:48Z")
As a data point, a [judge dismissed a suit](http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/judge-upholds-seattles-gun-and-ammunition-tax/) that claimed Seattle’s $25 per gun and 2 or 5 cents per round of ammunition was unconstitutional. The decision is likely to be appealed.
A [similar tax in Chicag](http://cookcountyrecord.com/stories/510654230-gun-rights-group-lawsuit-targets-new-cook-county-ammo-tax-says-violates-u-s-state-constitutions)o has been paid into escrow while it is being disputed in court.
So the question might be asked, how much is too great a tax on a constitutionally protected right? That has been answered [for voting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)… any tax is too much. And for [spreading religion by selling religious materials](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Follett_v._Town_of_McCormick)… a $1 per day or $15 per year license fee was too much (amounts as of 1944). $1 and $15 in 1944 would be $13.59 or $203.90 [in 2016 dollars](http://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=100&year=1944).
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/64 "2016-07-11T15:37:35Z")
> [@bump](#):
>
> …But apparently rifles are scary, so we have to freak out and run around like Chicken Little, without actually thinking about it or doing anything rational.
So far, absent any actual proposal, your plan appears to be “do nothing”. That may well be “rational” within your presumed parameters. But how long will that option be viable? You complain that the people are not reasonable, they “run around like Chicken Little”. is that going to get better? People will calm down once there are a lot fewer such incidents as have inflamed the public? When will that be, do you think? Or don’t you?
---
### Author:  [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/65 "2016-07-11T16:09:18Z")
> [@Iggy](#):
>
> And quote me the part of Roe v. Wade which guarantees a right to acquire an abortion at a good price.
>
> Placing an excessively burdensome tax on a product or service in an effort to effectively ban a legal product or service would be open to tremendous abuse. SCOTUS decisions on abortion indicate restrictions that place an undue burden on a woman procuring an abortion do not stand up to Constitutional scrutiny. I suspect the same could be said of backdoor efforts to price guns out of existence.
This is in effect what all those attempts to require abortions only take place at hospital type facilities was aiming at.
---
### Author:  [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/66 "2016-07-11T16:21:14Z")
I’m starting to come around to the point of view of these NRA-types. I think all these shootings are a false flag operation, but they are perpetuated by the NRA and gun manufacturers to sell more guns
---
### Author:  [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/67 "2016-07-11T16:23:41Z")
> [@wolfpup](#):
>
> Some might challenge a gun tax, like they challenged gun laws, and the outcome would largely depend on the makeup of the Court at the time. But the constitution says nothing about the government handing out free guns to those who can’t afford them, or anything else about pricing and sales. If the money curbs demand and is used for good causes related to the terrible costs of gun violence, any court not composed of Scalia/Alito/Thomas type wingnuts should see it as serving a public interest.
I doubt it. I would bet that any significant tax on guns that was intended to reduce the availability and affordability of guns would get overturned even if the court replaced Scalia, Alito Thomas with three clones of Roberts and Kennedy.
They might approve of more gun control schemes but probably not that one. The constitution still means something in that building.
---
### Author:  [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/68 "2016-07-11T16:25:41Z")
> [@Iggy](#):
>
> As a data point, a [judge dismissed a suit](http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/judge-upholds-seattles-gun-and-ammunition-tax/) that claimed Seattle’s $25 per gun and 2 or 5 cents per round of ammunition was unconstitutional. The decision is likely to be appealed.
Actually this case was not a constitutional challenge - it was a challenge based on Washington State’s preemption laws. The question presented was whether the tax was in substance a regulation. It is being appealed. [Here is the actual ruling.](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2653417-Gun-tax-ruling.html)
> [@](#):
>
> A [similar tax in Chicag](http://cookcountyrecord.com/stories/510654230-gun-rights-group-lawsuit-targets-new-cook-county-ammo-tax-says-violates-u-s-state-constitutions)o has been paid into escrow while it is being disputed in court.
[This lawsuit](http://www.gunssavelife.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Complaint-for-DJ-and-Injunctive-Relief-2015-CH-18217.pdf) is based in part on a constitutional challenge, but also on preemption grounds. The writing in this lawsuit is not very good.
---
### Author:  [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/69 "2016-07-11T16:32:35Z")
> [@wolfpup](#):
>
> I seem to recall his fiancée and her assistant believing that he was a secret government agent and part alien, so I assume he was of the same general mindset.
>
> But on 20 vs. 21, this is an issue you’re going to get with any kind of quantitative regulation. That’s just how it is. I think the limit should be whatever a reasonable person could reasonably need for a stated purpose, but I know this is going to raise the hackles of the constitutionalists again.
I agree that you are probably not limiting my right to self defense by limiting my right to a 21st gun. I probably couldn’t carry 20 guns so how could that 21st gun help me defend myself? But, what harm are you avoiding by preventing me from getting that 21st gun? It really seems like limitations for the sake of limitations.
Anyone that has more than half a dozen guns or so is starting to enter the realm of gun collector and enthusiast. And much like pornography, gun collection is probably protected under a milder standard than the protection for political speech or guns for self defense. But you STILL need something more than “I don’t like guns” to be able to get past constitutional scrutiny for a law like that.
---
### Author:  [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/70 "2016-07-11T16:35:02Z")
> [@elucidator](#):
>
> Perhaps the 2nd Amendment is silent on the question of acquisition due to an assumption already made explicit. The rationale for the Amendment is the necessity of citizen mililtia. The Founding Fuckups expected the militia to be well-organized and regulated. Most likely, organized at the level of government appropriate to their situation, population density and threat.
>
> So, they might well have assumed that the well-regulated militias would supply the needed weapons. (Lot of advantages to be had with standard and interchangeable weapons.) Having citizens supply their own weapons is more akin to guerrilla resistance than a well-regulated militia. Doesn’t the very phrase bring to mind men in uniform clothing, with uniform equipment? Uniform weapons, with standardized caliber, shot, powder?
>
> It may never have occurred to them to be concerned about individual access to firearms.
When you mustered militia, the militiamen generally brought their own guns. They didn’t generally get issued guns.
---
### Author:  [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/71 "2016-07-11T16:40:03Z")
> [@wolfpup](#):
>
> The consequence of cars is transportation. The consequence of guns is someone or something being shot and probably killed. Seems to be what they’re for. Which is why guns in America is such a huge national problem that some seem completely blind to.
>
> I believe 10% for pistols and 11% for rifles and ammo.
> Probably just what you might imagine would happen. But not if it was 20% or 40%. And I don’t know how abortions became a standard of comparison other than just being “something conservatives don’t like”, since abortions aren’t requested arbitrarily or on some whim and don’t have price-driven demand.
The two most common rights that we compare to gun rights are first amendment rights and abortion rights.
Abortion rights are frequently brought up by gun rights advocates because it allows them to compare the treatment of a penumbra right like abortion to an explicitly enumerated right like gun rights.
The first amendment is used because it really does seem like the closest analogy in the bill of rights.
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/72 "2016-07-11T16:41:52Z")
> [@Velocity](#):
>
> I wonder too. Have high taxes on a Constitutional right ever been ruled un-Constitutional?
All the way back to John Marshall in 1819. The federal government had established a national bank, which many states opposed. In Maryland, they tried to shut down the bank by enacted a high tax on banks which didn’t have a state-issued charter. Marshall ruled against Maryland, saying that the states _“have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden or in any manner control the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress”_ and that _“the power to tax involves the power to destroy”_.
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/73 "2016-07-11T17:02:43Z")
> [@septimus](#):
>
> Am I correct that there is already a 10% or 11% federal excise tax on guns and ammunition? Is anyone here claiming that those taxes (along with added sales tax) are unconstitutional? What if the excise tax were raised to 20%? Or 40%?
26 U.S. Code Chapter 32 - Manufacturers Excise Taxes § 4181
> [@](#):
>
> There is hereby imposed upon the sale by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of the following articles a tax equivalent to the specified percent of the price for which so sold:
>
> Articles taxable at 10 percent—
>
> Pistols.
>
> Revolvers.
>
> Articles taxable at 11 percent—
>
> Firearms (other than pistols and revolvers).
>
> Shells, and cartridges.
This Manufacturers Excise Taxes places taxes on an interesting variety of items besides guns and ammo: tires, eyeglasses and hearing aids, bows and arrows, coal, vaccines, and gasoline and diesel fuel. I remember when I worked on a farm, we had gasoline and diesel fuel that was dyed to indicate it was for non-taxable use by farming equipment.
> [@septimus](#):
>
> (Off-topic: Several decades ago California had no sales tax on newspapers or magazines. I thought of this as a tribute to the First Amendment and the value of a free press, and regretted the exemption’s repeal.)
New York doesn’t tax newspapers or magazines. It’s caught me by surprise when I had to pay sales tax on them in other states.
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/74 "2016-07-11T17:02:51Z")
> [@](#):
>
> When you mustered militia, the militiamen generally brought their own guns. They didn’t generally get issued guns.
“Generally”? So, sometimes they _were_ issued weapons? Who paid for them? If you were mustered to answer a grave threat, would you take your households only weapon with you? But “generally”, that’s what they did? Leave their family defenseless and go protect somebody _else’s_ family? You can prove any of this?
And where were these militia mustered? Among the staid and safe burghers and businessmen of New York? Or out on the frontier, where the indigenous population was still grumpy about this whole “manifest destiny” thingy?
Was a “well-regulated” militia what the frontier wanted? Would they not have preferred the protection of an actual Army? Preferably one paid for by taxes on the entire nation, taxes on people in the East who had no threat? I think that is more likely, people being people. But it was not a practical solution, the recent Republic could not possibly afford to protect them, even if they wanted to.
So, they did the next best thing, reassure them that the had every right to protect themselves! No, don’t thank us, really. You are entirely free to leave your home defenseless against savages, and go gather your militia.
And everyone on the various frontiers owned a musket? All of them? Can this be proven, outside of NRA sponsored historical research? Not that I don’t trust them. I don’t, but that isn’t it. One might think so, given that there is no indication of any effort to \*provide \*a weapon. But then again, if you don’t want to pay for it, it might be easy enough to assume that no such expense was justified.
And just by the by…what did the words “well regulated militia” mean in 1792?
---
### Author:  [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/75 "2016-07-11T17:38:13Z")
> [@elucidator](#):
>
> So far, absent any actual proposal, your plan appears to be “do nothing”. That may well be “rational” within your presumed parameters. But how long will that option be viable? You complain that the people are not reasonable, they “run around like Chicken Little”. is that going to get better? People will calm down once there are a lot fewer such incidents as have inflamed the public? When will that be, do you think? Or don’t you?
I think that there’s a large, vocal minority, and that the majority of the people are either pro-gun, or don’t care one way or the other.
All I’m saying is that all the panic about “assault weapons” is baseless. In terms of the actual nation, the number of people killed by rifles in total is comparable to such dastardly thing like falling out of bed (450 people/yr), drowning in bathtubs (300 per year), toxoplasmosis from cat litter boxes (300 people/yr). And not all of those 351 rifle deaths are “assault rifle” deaths- they could be bolt action rifles, 22 rifles, etc…
It’s the same old story about child abductions, etc… people see a few high profile things, and any semblance of rational risk assessment goes out the window, and stupid stuff gets done to solve a problem that’s not even a problem, and overall we’re worse off for it.
---
### Author:  [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/76 "2016-07-11T17:50:52Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#):
>
> …
> I would suspect that you’re on pretty shaky ground with those assertions. The Constitution simply doesn’t address the question of acquiring new firearms (as opposed to ownership of firearms). And it doesn’t address the question of pricing, or of “access.”
> …
Well, the federal courts have ruled on the matter of acquiring new firearms. The District Court ruled the CNMI’s ban on importation or possession of a gun unconstitutional.
[Radich v. Guerrero](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/mariana-islands/nmidce/1:2014cv00020/4365/60) from the US District Court for the Northern Marianas Islands
> [@](#):
>
> If the Second Amendment individual right to keep and bear a handgun for self-defense is to have any meaning it must protect an eligible individual’s right to purchase a handgun, as well as the complimentary right o sell handguns. …
---
### Author:  [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/77 "2016-07-11T18:03:47Z")
> [@elucidator](#):
>
> You can prove any of this?
Someone linked the 1792 law in a pervious post. Is that not good enough?
> [@](#):
>
> And everyone on the various frontiers owned a musket? All of them?
Maybe not all of them but I think the vast majority of households had at least one gun. But I suppose there were some people who didn’t have a gun for some reason or another.
> [@](#):
>
> And just by the by…what did the words “well regulated militia” mean in 1792?
Near as I can tell, it meant well trained and disciplined militia. What do you think it means?
---
### Author:  [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/78 "2016-07-11T18:16:14Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#):
>
> I doubt it. I would bet that any significant tax on guns that was intended to reduce the availability and affordability of guns would get overturned even if the court replaced Scalia, Alito Thomas with three clones of Roberts and Kennedy.
>
> They might approve of more gun control schemes but probably not that one. The constitution still means something in that building.
Probably true, because Roberts is a conservative and Kennedy is in many respects libertarian. The difference is that Scalia, Alito, and Thomas were/are batshit crazy. And that’s how you got the 5-4 vote on _Heller_. Replace Scalia with someone sane and it would be 5-4 the other way. Because rationality and the best interests of society still mean something in that building.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/79 "2016-07-11T18:40:49Z")
> [@Iggy](#):
>
> Well, the federal courts have ruled on the matter of acquiring new firearms. The District Court ruled the CNMI’s ban on importation or possession of a gun unconstitutional.
>
> [Radich v. Guerrero](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/mariana-islands/nmidce/1:2014cv00020/4365/60) from the US District Court for the Northern Marianas Islands
What do “Justices” know about this? We have our genius, anonymous poster here to tell us what the situation actually is!
---
### Author:  [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/80 "2016-07-11T19:56:37Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#):
>
> Near as I can tell, it meant well trained and disciplined militia. What do you think it means?
As far as I can glean, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, it meant something along the lines of well organized, correctly functioning, properly calibrated, etc…
So reading that phrase along with the subsequent Militia Act of 1792 requiring the miltiamen to provide their own weapons, I look at the 2nd Amendment as being a way to ensure that the militia (i.e. all male citizens between 18 and 45 years of age) would be properly armed; if they were prohibited from keeping and bearing arms, it would preclude the militia being “well regulated” by the definition of the time. After all, if you’re expected to show up with your own gun, but your state or municipality has forbidden it, it doesn’t really make for a militia that functions as expected.
In my mind, this actually implies a modern-day interpretation that weapons like the AR-15 would be\* explicitly allowed\* under that line of thought, as they’re eminently suitable for militia use, while other guns like handguns and sporting weapons would be less protected, being less suitable for militia purposes.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502.md?page=3)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502.md?page=5)