There has got to be a reason that in 90 years of the NFA, it hasn't been knocked down.  I know that the powers that be, and for that matter, probably 95% of our government, want to keep it in place and further restrict it, but has there ever been a case that challenges the NFA from the perspective of it being the taxation of a right and then the refusal to collect said tax, serving as a real restriction of a right, similar to a poll tax/poll test/etc.  The government isn't supposed to be able to say "this is the requirement to do this thing that is a right, but we are going to tax it  .. but also we refuse to collect the tax.  So you can't do it."

What part of the 2A says anything about barrel length?

If you want to go down the "tax" rabbit hole, why are states allowed to charge sales tax on firearms?  Wouldn't charging sales tax on a book also be a violation the 1A?

I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make.

If a unique tax were levied specifically for a book, or paper, or ink - and then the taxing authority refused to collect that tax so that you could not legally acquire the book, paper or ink, despite wanting to pay for it and offering to pay the taxes imposed, then yeah - absolutely that would be a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Neither side wants to go there.

Voting should require an ID, yes?

Those aren't free.

Rant! Gnash! Rant!

My rights, roar!

??

If voting required you to have an ID (which isn't the case everywhere, actually) - but if it did, first, there are programs to allow those in poverty to get free ID's, and for those that do pay for their ID's, they don't refuse to allow the person to pay thereby preventing them from getting the ID and the things derived from that.

We're also talking about the difference between a fee and a tax.  Legally, those are two very different things.  NFA is a "tax".  Getting an ID or DL is a "fee".  SCOTUS has already ruled on it being OK to charge a reasonable fee for something that affects rights - but not a tax.  I don't recall the case for that, but I'm sure someone will.  I think it had to do with charging a special tax for paper and ink.

Regardless, you're going down a rabbit hole.  My question was pretty simple.  There have GOT to be people that have sued based on the initial premise I mentioned.  Do we know of any cases?  I'm curious to see how they were ruled on, or dismissed, etc.

Is in Texas.

I would think that the difference is that you are not paying the tax for the item, which is legitimate, you are paying a tax for the "privilege" to possess it. For NFA items you are actually being taxed twice, once for the item, once for the permission slip.

Free IDs for voting purposes only are available in NH.

The town clerk will give you a voucher to bring to the DMV.

In a quick search, it looks like SCOTUS declined to take up United States v. Cox, which argued, at least in part, the tax angle as rendering the NFA as unconstitutional. Not exactly clean.

Barrel length restrictions would be an infringement.

The real truth: Government doesn't care, so suck it.

Guys, this forum is NOT GD - this is the Legal Section and the bar is set significantly higher (like in a tech forum) for content/discussion.  The flippant and other useless posts are not appropriate or helpful for this forum.  I don't know if you guys are just browsing the "most recent activity" or "new topics" link and see this thread in there but neglect to notice which forum its in before replying...  

Homesteader - thanks.  I will looked at that 2016 case  about suppressors.  You're right that it's not the ideal case, because you can still pay the tax to get a suppressor.

I can't believe there hasn't been a clean case sent to challenge the NFA for MG's.  Maybe there have been, but they've been tossed out for the courts' favorite when they don't want to address an issue:  "lack of standing" - and few people who don't have questionable backgrounds are willing to make a machinegun, get arrested for it and then challenge the law.

However, I could swear that Nolo on this site filed one such case several years ago when the ATF mistakenly approved some Form 1's to make new machineguns and then rescinded those.  I wonder whatever happened to that case...

It gets worse... As a "taxing" agency... the BATFE had at least some Constitutional authority to exist...

But now? Shrub Jr moved the BATFE over under the DoJ... The DoJ is NOT a tax collecting agency... They are Federal Law enforcement and investigation. No taxing authority AT ALL...

Not only was the original law dodgy as f*ck... but every expansion of that law under it's auspices should also be tossed out with prejudice...

This case is interesting:  https://casetext.com/case/us-v-dalton-22

double tap

Never heard of the TTB huh?

Moving ATF enforcement to DOJ doesn't magically make federal taxes disappear.






Congress is the "taxing authority".

You can get a free ID for voting purposes in Missouri. The state will even assist you in gathering the needed documents.

FACT: Government will do whatever the hell it wants & call it legal, the law be damned, pick up that can, & don't forget to pay your taxes. Or else...

I don’t think it will ever be successfully challenged on the basis of taxing a right.

The 24th amendment had to be made to specifically for bid taxing the right to vote. I think that will unfortunately be used against us.

It didn't really have to be done. Enforcing the 15th amendment should have been sufficient. The 24th was little more than the entire country telling the south they wanted to speak to their managers.

It all stems from the fact that voting g rights were never enumerated in the constitution and were captured under states rights.