Killing Guns

For John, BLUF:  No matter who wins the Presidency, taxes will be a problem in 2017..  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The InstaPundit, Law Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds, links to an item in The Blaze, "Taxing $1,000 per Gun Became a Reality in One U.S. Territory — and Some Worry It Could Spread".

Gov. Ralph Torres signed the gun tax and regulation bill into law Monday and stressed that his first priority is the safety of law enforcement and the community.

“It’s something that none of us want, and we want to make it as strict as possible,” Torres said in a statement.

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, blasted these as examples of the left targeting guns and noted that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has backed taxes on guns in the past.

“The left is now seeking to tax guns out of existence,” Norquist said in a statement Monady.  “The Second Amendment makes it difficult to legally ban guns, but Hillary has led the way to explaining you can achieve the same thing with high taxes.”

This would be the Northern Marianas Islands.

But, from there it could, like a nuclear chain reaction, spread across the nation.  Except where Republicans control the state government, unless, of course, Ms Hillary Clinton is elected President, with Democrat majorities in both Houses.  Then there could be a national tax on guns.

On the other hand, Professor Reynolds says:

There must be a solid case to be made that a $1,000 tax on a $500 pistol is an unconstitutional infringement on a court-recognized individual right.

So, here is the point:

The power to tax is the power to destroy.♠

Chief Justice John Marshall

As an aside, here is a comment on the axiom:

Chief Justice John Marshall was at his axiomatic best in the Supreme Court opinion set forth in McCulloch v. Maryland.  He propounded several interesting and profound axioms in that decision.  The strange thing about these axioms is that they have been permitted to remain in the limited context in which he found use for them rather than being given general application.  This is strange because axioms are, by nature, universal in extent and everywhere applicable, if they are true.  Moreover, these axioms have been given added weight in the United States by being embedded in and used to buttress a unanimous Supreme Court decision which still stands.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  I wonder if Ms Clinton captures this or is just drifting toward it?