# 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:** 5
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/81 "2016-07-11T20:18:42Z")
> [@elucidator](#):
>
> 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.
I’m hesitant to risk insulting you by reminding you of the Founders loathing of a standing army, but you seem to be ignoring that completely in you analysis. We, of course, take a standing army in times of peace a a given, but surely you know this was thought to be extremely dangerous back in the day (you know, when you and I were younger. 😉 )
---
### Author:  [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/82 "2016-07-11T20:34:40Z")
> [@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
Why are you citing Radich v. Guerrero? It had nothing to do with excise taxes on firearms.
(It concerned a \*ban \*on firearms–specifically, on handguns.)
The topic of this thread is not bans, but taxes.
A side note: In the quote you offer after citing Radich v. Guerrero (“If the Second Amendment individual right to keep and bear a handgun …”) we can perhaps take the measure of the erudition and scholarship of the judge in the case, by the fact that in the decision he wrote “complimentary” where he meant “complementary.” So far as I can tell the error actually is in his decision as submitted (rather than in quotation of that decision).
As to whether a “right to purchase” will hold up: that is questionable, particularly given the context of the “Complimentary” decision. The decision concerns a ‘right to purchase’ as opposed to a ban on sales–_not_ a ‘right to purchase’ at a nice price. To allege that the 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to acquire a gun at a price you can afford, strikes me as hubristic in the extreme; good luck with that one.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/83 "2016-07-11T20:47:46Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#):
>
> that the 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to acquire a gun at a price you can afford, strikes me as hubristic in the extreme; good luck with that one.
Then I guess it’s a good thing no one has made that claim in this thread!
---
### Author:  [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/84 "2016-07-11T20:50:44Z")
Teixeira mentioned in post #54 directly speaks to acquisition of firearms.
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/85 "2016-07-11T20:51:08Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#):
>
> The decision concerns a ‘right to purchase’ as opposed to a ban on sales–_not_ a ‘right to purchase’ at a nice price. To allege that the 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to acquire a gun at a price you can afford, strikes me as hubristic in the extreme; good luck with that one.
You’re still pushing a strawman. Nobody said that you have a right to an affordable gun. We said the government cannot do something which would make guns unaffordable.
---
### Author:  [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/86 "2016-07-11T20:52:14Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> Then I guess it’s a good thing no one has made that claim in this thread!
Seriously? You want me to quote all the screeching in this thread about how a tax would mean that Now People Can’t Buy Guns, and how a tax would mean Violation of the SA? It will break the quote function.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/87 "2016-07-11T20:59:17Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#):
>
> Seriously? You want me to quote all the screeching in this thread about how a tax would mean that Now People Can’t Buy Guns, and how a tax would mean Violation of the SA? It will break the quote function.
No, I’d like you to quote where some said “that the 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to acquire a gun at a price you can afford”.
There is a difference between the market producing a product at an affordable price and the government levying taxes on a product for the purpose of making it unaffordable.
---
### Author:  [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/88 "2016-07-11T21:10:39Z")
Okay, I grabbed some obvious examples that refute the claim that “no one” has said that excise taxes on firearms would violate 2nd Amendment rights. The essence of these is their implicit or explicit–but fallacious–claim that a “special high tax” on the purchase of firearms (to quote one formulation) is equivalent to a ban on the purchase of firearms. In addition, a few baldly assert a “right to acquire” as though this is settle law, though of course it is not.
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> …And as long as the Second Amendment is law, I believe a tax like you proposed would be unconstitutional. You can justify normal taxation on firearms and ammo. But a special high tax on firearms and ammo would be infringing people’s right to buy them.
> [@Iggy](#):
>
> …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.
> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> … Let’s levy a $10,000 tax on abortions. There is nothing in the constitution at all about abortions, so why would women have a right to get one at a good price?
> The SCOTUS would not allow an arbitrarily high tax on guns, since it would effectively make them unavailable to many citizens.
> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> Not a good analogy since access to tobacco is not guaranteed by the constitution. Congress could make it illegal by simply passing a law, as they do with other “drugs”.
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> That’s legal sophistry. The Constitution says the government can’t infringe on people keeping or bearing arms. Setting an intentionally high tax on firearms or ammunition would be infringing that right. And denying “access” to firearms is even more clearly an infringement.
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> What the law says is that the government cannot hinder people from acquiring guns. That’s what infringement means.
> Putting a high tax on guns would be the same as those laws in Texas and Virginia that attempted to close abortion clinics by placing restrictive regulations on them.
> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> … The feds don’t have unlimited powers, and I’m not seeing where in the Constitution it’s granted to power to ban products arbitrarily. Tobacco can be (if it has’t already been) declared a drug and could be made illegal. However, I think that poster meant to refer to constitutionally protected items, such as guns.
> But it wouldn’t allow an “undue burden” in acquiring one. At some point, a tax would become prohibitive. If I had to guess (and IANAL, so I could be wrong) I would suspect that a tax designed to limit the sales of guns would be found to be unconstitutional.
> [@Bone](#):
>
> …I’ll start with the premise: If “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is to have any force, the people must have a right to acquire the very firearms they are entitled to keep and to bear.
Then, after all this, we have two posters claiming that ‘no one"’ (and/or ‘nobody’) posted what has been posted:
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> You’re still pushing a strawman. Nobody said that you have a right to an affordable gun. We said the government cannot do something which would make guns unaffordable.
Green bit versus pink bit: your powers of logic appear to have failed you.
---
### Author:  [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/89 "2016-07-11T21:44:41Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#):
>
> Why are you citing Radich v. Guerrero? It had nothing to do with excise taxes on firearms.
Because while you are thinking specifically of excise taxes, the court often analogizes broader principles when making their ruling. The idea is that there are many coextensive rights that are not enumerated connected to those rights that are enumerated.
And this:
> [@Bone](#):
>
> I’ll start with the premise: If “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is to have any force, the people must have a right to acquire the very firearms they are entitled to keep and to bear.
This is a direct quote from the 9th Circuit on the matter of acquisition.
---
### Author:  [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/90 "2016-07-11T22:07:32Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#):
>
> Why are you citing Radich v. Guerrero? It had nothing to do with excise taxes on firearms.
>
> (It concerned a \*ban \*on firearms–specifically, on handguns.)
>
> The topic of this thread is not bans, but taxes.
>
> …
I quoted it because you made the assertion that somehow the constitution might not protect the right to acquire a new gun. The courts have already ruled that the right to import, sell, or purchase a gun is fundamental to the right to keep and bear as ruled in _Heller_.
The decision in Radich v Guerrero is worth a read. It also touches on the idea of taxing something into effective non-existance. Also not allowed.
And as to the judge’s abilities… I could not copy and paste, so spelling errors may be my own.
And one week after the ruling in Radich v. Guerrero was handed down the CNMI legislature passed a law to impose a $1000 import duty on each handgun. That is currently being challenged.
But issues are slightly complicated by the Covenant agreement that formed the CNMI in as much as the CNMI does have a right to create its own Customs service that individual states do not.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/91 "2016-07-11T22:08:16Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#):
>
> Okay, I grabbed some obvious examples that refute the claim that “no one” has said that excise taxes on firearms would violate 2nd Amendment rights. The essence of these is their implicit or explicit–but fallacious–claim that a “special high tax” on the purchase of firearms (to quote one formulation) is equivalent to a ban on the purchase of firearms. In addition, a few baldly assert a “right to acquire” as though this is settle law, though of course it is not.
>
> Then, after all this, we have two posters claiming that ‘no one"’ (and/or ‘nobody’) posted what has been posted:
>
> Green bit versus pink bit: your powers of logic appear to have failed you.
Fail. No one is saying that “the 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to acquire a gun at a price you can afford”. The would mean the government would subsidize your purchase if you couldn’t afford one, or that the government wold force manufacturers to set prices low enough that anyone could afford one.
Again, you are conflating “the government can’t prevent you from buying” with “the government must make sure you are able to buy.” Those are two different things.
And this is as much as I’m going to debate this in The Pit. You and your sidekick, **Elvis** , can open a thread in GD if you want to debate it out in the open. I know you think you’re some genius who has discovered a loop-hole that no one else has thought of in 250 years, but it’s much more likely that the alternative is true.
---
### Author:  [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/92 "2016-07-11T22:44:57Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> I’m hesitant to risk insulting you by reminding you of the Founders loathing of a standing army
Go right ahead. You’d only be showing your \*own \*ignorance of how heavily debated and close a decision it was and how quickly they reversed it.
Damn, boy.
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/93 "2016-07-11T22:47:24Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> I’m hesitant to risk insulting you by reminding you of the Founders loathing of a standing army, but you seem to be ignoring that completely in you analysis. We, of course, take a standing army in times of peace a a given, but surely you know this was thought to be extremely dangerous back in the day (you know, when you and I were younger. 😉 )
My point really isn’t so much about the theory and practice of a standing army, more about the reluctance to pay for it. As well as sheer parsimony, there is the reluctance of Virginia to pay for an army commanded by New York. And so it went.
The Militia Acts are, well, kinda stupid. It establishes a Federal force but evades the problem of paying for it. It drafted everybody and told them to be armed and ready. The difference between that a standing army is a matter of semantics and taxation. This solution was breathtaking in its simplicity and mind boggling in impracticality.
But did anyone really believe that such a rag-tag improvisation could protect America from lean and hungry barbarians from the North?
---
### Author:  [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/94 "2016-07-11T22:50:20Z")
> [@elucidator](#):
>
> So, they might well have assumed that the well-regulated militias would supply the needed weapons…
> It may never have occurred to them to be concerned about individual access to firearms.
That in fact \*was \*the system in place at the time. Even so, they still went out of their way to explain the reason for the Second.
The Articles of Confederation, actually in force at the time, were clearer:
> [@](#):
>
> No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
---
### Author:  [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/95 "2016-07-11T22:56:31Z")
> [@Bone](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Originally Posted by Bone
> > I’ll start with the premise: If “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is to have any force, the people must have a right to acquire the very firearms they are entitled to keep and to bear.
>
> This is a direct quote from the 9th Circuit on the matter of acquisition.
No. It’s a direct quote from the 9th Circuit on the matter of _availability_ for purchase; the judge’s use of the term “acquire” will not be upheld as it does imply a “right” not only not made explicit in the Constitution, but not inferable via the legal penumbra of the Constitution, as established in precedent. He will be found to have overstepped.
The case you are citing concerns the _banning_ of firearm ownership, sale, and purchases. The case has nothing to do with the price of firearms. _Therefore it has nothing to do with the price being, hypothetically, a bar to purchase._
And to John\_Mace: What the heck is the “out in the open” distinction you’re trying to make between GD and the Pit? Are you claiming that we enter the Dark Internet when we open this subfolder???
---
### Author:  [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/96 "2016-07-11T23:32:27Z")
> [@wolfpup](#):
>
> 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.
So are Roberts and Kennedy not sane?:dubious:
Rationality, yes but the best interests of society take a second seat to legal interpretation of the constitution. Otherwise you might have justices limiting all the other rights “in the best interests of society”
What’s that? You didn’t have a warrant when you entered their home looking for evidence and found the dead body being dissolved in acid? Well shit, we will just go ahead and allow that evidence in the best interests of society. Other democratic countries do exactly this.
What’s that? People are saying nasty things about the president and it is undermining the stability of the country? I suppose that a prohibition from criticizing the government is consistent with freedom of speech. Other democratic countries do this.
It is not the role of the courts to determine what is in the best interests of society. that is up to the elected branches. The judiciary interprets the laws and as long as the result is reasonable and rational, they don’t make calls about what is best for the country.
Scalia is one of the most respected legal minds of the last generation or three. You may disagree with him but dismissing him as batshit crazy just makes you look like one of those guys that think that SCOTUS is god’s word when you agree with them and partisan hacks when you disagree with them. I know plenty of people that think that SCOTUS was batshit crazy when they wrote Roe V Wade (arguably one of the worst reasoned opinions in our lifetime).
---
### Author:  [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/97 "2016-07-11T23:34:23Z")
> [@bump](#):
>
> 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.
Heller found a self defense right in the second amendment (this was the part that was new to me). And for that purpose, the handgun is particularly well suited.
---
### Author:  [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/98 "2016-07-11T23:42:46Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#):
>
> Okay, I grabbed some obvious examples that refute the claim that “no one” has said that excise taxes on firearms would violate 2nd Amendment rights. The essence of these is their implicit or explicit–but fallacious–claim that a “special high tax” on the purchase of firearms (to quote one formulation) is equivalent to a ban on the purchase of firearms. In addition, a few baldly assert a “right to acquire” as though this is settle law, though of course it is not.
> Then, after all this, we have two posters claiming that ‘no one"’ (and/or ‘nobody’) posted what has been posted:
>
> Green bit versus pink bit: your powers of logic appear to have failed you.
Your powers of reading seem to have failed you
Civic 102: The Constitution does not protect you from free market forces interfering with your rights. The Constitution protects you from the GOVERNMENT doing shit that interferes with your constitutional rights.
So if a shortage of abortion supplies makes abortions skyrocket beyond your ability to afford them, then there is no constitutional issue involved. If the government taxes abortion supplies so that they become unaffordable, THEN there is a constitutional issue involved. Do you understand that our rights are to protect us from government actions right? The only right that is given special treatment with regards o affordability is the right to counsel. If you cannot afford counsel, one will be appointed to you. If you cannot afford a gun, then that is just unfortunate.
So no one has posted that you have a right to an affordable gun.
---
### Author:  [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/99 "2016-07-11T23:44:18Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> Fail. No one is saying that “the 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to acquire a gun at a price you can afford”. The would mean the government would subsidize your purchase if you couldn’t afford one, or that the government wold force manufacturers to set prices low enough that anyone could afford one.
>
> Again, you are conflating “the government can’t prevent you from buying” with “the government must make sure you are able to buy.” Those are two different things.
>
> And this is as much as I’m going to debate this in The Pit. You and your sidekick, **Elvis** , can open a thread in GD if you want to debate it out in the open. I know you think you’re some genius who has discovered a loop-hole that no one else has thought of in 250 years, but it’s much more likely that the alternative is true.
You never stated an alternative.
---
### Author:  [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2016, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/100 "2016-07-11T23:47:24Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#):
>
> And to John\_Mace: What the heck is the “out in the open” distinction you’re trying to make between GD and the Pit? Are you claiming that we enter the Dark Internet when we open this subfolder???
not to speak for John Mace but I think he is saying that it is easy to be immune to logic and rationality here in the pit but you would get laughed out of great debate. They’re assholes over there in Great Debates, they laugh at retards.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502.md?page=4)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502.md?page=6)