Jaymes et al vs Maduros, CRPA suit against 11% Excise Tax, July 2 2024

[ProfChaos]

If you can explain how an 11% change in the price of an item constitutes an "emergency", your argument would be stronger. Ideally to a judge, but for starters, explain it to us.

I was trying to use a hyperbole here. Everything is an emergency when it comes to the State, but nothing when it comes to putting a stop to the inhibition of our rights.

[TTT]

Fabio provided literally nothing of any value whatsoever. I tire of your spin on him.

Absolutely. She did nothing other than insulting the people who were trying to get things done. I don't believe she was even a gun owner, she never posted anything other than snotty criticism of other peoples' efforts.

[MountainLion]

... you are obviously a millennial and never got US history in 5th grade.

I collect social security. And I've had my share of history classes. I'm quite familiar with the events you talk about.

Now please explain: How does an increase in the cost of a good by a few years' worth of inflation cause "irreparable harm"?

[Batman]

Let's frame the argument as a Constitutional issue. There are two ways to look at this;

The first is that taxes are under the purview of the government, and they alone have the power to levy them. The fact that alcohol was both banned and the ban repealed by the Constitution with taxes still applied is proof that it's legal to many.

The second is that taxing a right is unconstitutional. It's akin to a poll tax to allow you to vote, which has been found unconstitutional. Those who follow this logic will point this out.

The challenge is that we also have freedom of the press, but in order to buy a newspaper you have to pay taxes on it. You have the right to assemble and petition the government. They can, however, require a permit as well as limit where you can assemble.

That's the challenge that the courts have to sort out.

[norcalsig]

I collect social security. And I've had my share of history classes. I'm quite familiar with the events you talk about.

Now please explain: How does an increase in the cost of a good by a few years' worth of inflation cause "irreparable harm"?

Reading comprehension, try it

[BAJ475]

Reading comprehension, try it

With no disrespect, you should take your own advice. While MountainLion does not have that many posts, I suspect that he is an attorney or a retired attorney and you are trying to debate a legal point with him. Good luck with that.

[Sgt Raven]

Let's frame the argument as a Constitutional issue. There are two ways to look at this;

The first is that taxes are under the purview of the government, and they alone have the power to levy them. The fact that alcohol was both banned and the ban repealed by the Constitution with taxes still applied is proof that it's legal to many.

The second is that taxing a right is unconstitutional. It's akin to a poll tax to allow you to vote, which has been found unconstitutional. Those who follow this logic will point this out.

The challenge is that we also have freedom of the press, but in order to buy a newspaper you have to pay taxes on it. You have the right to assemble and petition the government. They can, however, require a permit as well as limit where you can assemble.

That's the challenge that the courts have to sort out.

A general sales tax, yes, but not a targeted tax.
Minneapolis Star, 460 U.S. 575, 585 (1983) (invalidating a Minnesota use tax on the cost of paper and ink products used in a publication.

[taperxz]

If you can explain how an 11% change in the price of an item constitutes an "emergency", your argument would be stronger. Ideally to a judge, but for starters, explain it to us.

[curtisfong]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murdock_v._Pennsylvania

If the exercise can be taxed, the government is capable of making it prohibitively expensive and could be done only by the wealthy.

[curtisfong]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gros...rican_Press_Co.

The predominant purpose of the grant of immunity here invoked was to preserve an untrammeled press as a vital source of public information. The newspapers, magazines and other journals of the country, it is safe to say, have shed and continue to shed, more light on the public and business affairs of the nation than any other instrumentality of publicity, and, since informed public opinion is the most potent of all restraints upon misgovernment, the suppression or abridgment of the publicity afforded by a free press cannot be regarded otherwise than with grave concern. The tax here involved is bad not because it takes money from the pockets of the appelles. If that were all, a wholly different question would be presented. It is bad because, in the light of its history and of its present setting, it is seen to be a deliberate and calculated device in the guise of a tax to limit the circulation of information to which the public is entitled in virtue of the constitutional guaranties. A free press stands as one of the great interpreters between the government and the people. To allow it to be fettered is to fetter ourselves.

[The Gleam]

Calguns has really fallen hard. If this had been any time between 2006 - 2016, there would have been over 300 posts in this thread by now discussing it, angles of approach, detailed legal explanation and potential other methods for attack.

Seems like nobody cares anymore.

I have to wonder how much of the apathy is caused by;

1) proactive gun owners leaving California,
2) older more proactive gun owners that gave a damn are now dying off,
3) the challenges of posting on Calguns over the past year prior to the update caused many previous members to bail on Calguns for good,
4) the update itself not being as user-friendly as the old version had been causing many previous members to bail on Calguns for good,
5) the anti-NRA crowd finally got their wish of neutering the NRA, which has helped expand a stigma of gun ownership in general, whether you like or hate WLP, and whether he had any influence in that or not,
6) or California politicians finally gaining traction with younger generations in brain-washing them through their anti-gun marketing campaigns, to get them to willingly and voluntarily eschew their 2nd Amendment civil-rights and abhor firearms, trading gun ownership, culpability, and independence for surrogate pursuits of weed, porn, video-games, transgender/DEI-games, climate-change blame, student loan 'forgiveness', support for Hamas/Hezbollah, socialism, welfare, passivity and plenty of other false, vacuous parasitic endeavors that government is all to willing to help them be saddled with.

.

I think you nailed it with #6.

One doesn't need to look any further than how the funds from this sham tax will be used to drive their campaign of impressing upon younger generations coming of age to hate firearms, hate hunting, hate shooting-sports - all a disguised method to build an army of imps to support their goal to abolish the 2nd Amendment one day.

Winning over hearts and minds by nurturing one indoctrinated NeoSocialist at a time.

---

[slimedog]

[Batman]

Only thing I'd say is keep the receipt. If the law is ever found unconstitutional, there may be some glimmer of hope to get the money back.

[tenemae]

Only thing I'd say is keep the receipt. If the law is ever found unconstitutional, there may be some glimmer of hope to get the money back.

Just make sure to xerox or scan it so you have a permanent copy. That thermal receipt will fade in the decade it will take for the case to resolve

[slimedog]