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. 
)
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.
Then I guess it’s a good thing no one has made that claim in this thread!
Teixeira mentioned in post #54 directly speaks to acquisition of firearms.
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.
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.
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.
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:
This is a direct quote from the 9th Circuit on the matter of acquisition.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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. 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???
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).
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.
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.
You never stated an alternative.
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.