Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Armslist Lawsuit Seeks to Punish Online Gun Seller, Narrow Loophoole in Law [View all]
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)75. Let's try this one last time..
I'm tired of holding your hand..
Before something was ruled unconstitutional, it was presumptively constitutional. With me so far? For example, before Loving v. Virginia, laws against interracial marriage were presumptively constitutional. (Not in all jurisdictions, mind you, Loving was just the straw that broke the camel's back, at the federal level.)
If we were in Alabama in 1964, a court in Alabama would say that such laws were constitutional. In 1968? unconstitutional- even though such a law was on the books at the time. Even after Loving, some states (such as Alabama) maintained unconstitutional anti-miscegenation laws. Any substantive challenge would have resulted in them being struck down as well, given the precedent of Loving. But without that direct challenge, such laws remained on the books.
That's what's happening with many state laws like Maryland's concealed carry licensing scheme. Given the precedent of McDonald, the laws are being ruled invalid. But until a court actually makes that determination, on a per-law basis? They remain on the books. Obviously a state legislature, or congress in the case of federal law can get ahead of that process and propose changes to the law without a challenge. For example, congress could repeal DOMA.
Until someone with standing chooses to make a case against the PR Act, or congress repeals it, it stands. Would you have argued in 1969 that Alabama's anti-miscegenation laws were likewise constitutional? Of course not. Precedent had been set with Loving, just waiting for a case to challenge the law in AL.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
272 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Armslist Lawsuit Seeks to Punish Online Gun Seller, Narrow Loophoole in Law [View all]
Judi Lynn
Dec 2012
OP
Re: prosecute the assholes that knowingly sell guns to people they shouldn't
Trunk Monkey
Dec 2012
#28
Private citizens CANNOT legally access the BATF instant-background check system
NickB79
Dec 2012
#30
This is not true. You can ship to someone IN YOUR STATE without a background check.
Atypical Liberal
Dec 2012
#6
This article is misleading. There is nothing special about what Armslist is doing.
Atypical Liberal
Dec 2012
#7
I do but the topic has been discussed so often over the last 11 years that I've become weary of
jody
Dec 2012
#22
We agree on those points. DoJ has the most credible data but even that depends on reports submitted
jody
Dec 2012
#24
Who knew?! Apparently public support of a position is a 'right wing talking point'! *snort* n/t
X_Digger
Dec 2012
#213
The same Yellow Dogs who wrecked havoc four years ago who are now out of office
DainBramaged
Dec 2012
#219
You claimed Democrats support was 60-70%. So now you are engaged in bullshit.
Warren Stupidity
Dec 2012
#272
Your view of the right thing and the views of others on what is the right thing diverge to the
ProgressiveProfessor
Dec 2012
#58
Like I said, you need those lines because the gun culture will push it to satisfy their needs.
Hoyt
Dec 2012
#70
Sad that you can't support Obama and the Democratic Party because they both support
jody
Dec 2012
#12
And there are ways to avoid that which have been discussed here numerous times.
PavePusher
Dec 2012
#205
If you really care when you sell a weapon, go through FFL. It's really that simple.
Hoyt
Dec 2012
#206
We'll eventually get meaningful gun control because the country is turning Blue, Democratic.
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#37
Baloney - there is a federal excise tax on ammo right now, as well as state taxes.
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#43
Now comes the subject-changing: no on is talking about McDonald. We are talking about
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#60
No: you just ignore the fact that Congress has power to tax ammunition. When it was pointed out
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#65
"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words.
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#101
Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted regardless of motive, and it would pass
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#107
I've addressed the "right now" portion, repeatedly. (presumptively constitutional before challenge,)
X_Digger
Dec 2012
#96
"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words.
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#100
"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--Full quote, un-chopped. Link:
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#112
No need: unlike you, I stand by my words and posts. But keep dodging: the link ain't going away:
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#116
So, is the Congressional tax on ammo constitutional, or not? Answer the straight question. n/t.
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#165
Then why were poll taxes ruled unconstitutional in some places before the 24th amendment?
X_Digger
Dec 2012
#77
Non responsive. We are talking about Congress's power to tax ammunition, not "poll" taxes.
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#78
We're talking about congress' power to tax. Which you keep falling back on, as though it's absolute.
X_Digger
Dec 2012
#80
You are the one that said Congress could not tax ammo; I pointed out it could and does. You keep
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#83
"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words.
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#88
No, you can't restrict a fundamental right by taxation *just because you don't like it. * also mine.
X_Digger
Dec 2012
#90
Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted regardless of motive, and it would pass
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#94
"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words.
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#106
No, you can't restrict a fundamental right by taxation *just because you don't like it. * also mine.
X_Digger
Dec 2012
#121
Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted, and the courts would affirm it.
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#125
Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted, and the courts would affirm it.
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#132
Is the Congressional tax on ammo constitutional, or not? Answer the straight question. n/t.
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#166
Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted, and the courts would affirm it.
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#222
The discussion is not about poll taxes; quit trying to change the subject. I am telling you again:
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#225
I posted before the shooting was announced. You replied 3 hours later - after the shooting.
hack89
Dec 2012
#226
I answered YOUR question; you could have used JUDGEMENT and thought "today, I'm not going
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#229
Why in the face of such tragedy was my question that important that you couldn't ignore it?
hack89
Dec 2012
#230
I answered YOUR question; you could have used JUDGEMENT and thought "today, I'm not going
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#231
I answered your unsolicited question; you chose to keep the argument going. And are continuing to do
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#235
You INITIATED the conversation; hell, my post above wasn't addressed to you! But keep
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#232
NO: I answered your unsolicited question. You could have chosen decency and discretion, and simply
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#236
"Now I am merely curious just how long I can string you along" - it's all a game to you, isn't it?
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#245
Once again: I answered YOUR question; you could have used JUDGEMENT and thought
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#241
NO: I answered your unsolicited question. You could have chosen decency and discretion, and simply
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#247
No one was "thinking about" you: I answered your unsolicited question. You chose at that time
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#252
NO: I answered your unsolicited question. You could have chosen decency and discretion, and simply
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#258
"Now I am merely curious just how long I can string you along" - hack89, having fun on a tragic day.
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#264
You INITIATED the conversation; my post above wasn't even addressed to you.
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#243
Before the shooting. You came back 3 hours after the shooting to pick a fight. nt
hack89
Dec 2012
#246
But go right ahead and keep peddling those pro-NRA talking points: the rest of DU is getting
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#254
You wanting to continue an argument about taxes on ammo from the NRA point of view
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#259
I answered your unsolicited question; you are still here at it, peddling NRA talking points. n/t
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#266
"Now I am merely curious just how long I can string you along" - hack89, on why he continues to
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#267
"this is my last post on the matter" <--hack89, Post #230. Too eager to keep the NRA talking points
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#268
"Now I am merely curious just how long I can string you along" - it's all a game to our Gungeoneers,
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#262
"Now I am merely curious just how long I can string you along" - hack89, having fun on a tragic day.
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#263
Wrong: YOU take the tax that is imposed on ammo RIGHT NOW to court, and try to
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#63
Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted, and the courts would affirm it.
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#223
Interesting, you didn't post a link to summary of the case - but, then, not really:
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#49
And where's the part about how they can't tax ammunition? Oooooh, that's right:
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#59
We're not talking about "discrimination": we're talking about Congress's power to impose a tax
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#64
I say Congress has the constitutional authority to tax ammo, you say they don't. Go get you a
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#71
Again trying to change the subject; not gonna happen. Again, Congress has the power to tax
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#82
"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words.
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#87
No, you can't restrict a fundamental right by taxation *just because you don't like it. * also mine.
X_Digger
Dec 2012
#92
Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted regardless of motive, and it would pass
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#98
Congress could raise the tax on AMMO to whatever it wanted regardless of motive, and it would pass
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#104
So, is the Congressional tax on ammo constitutional, or not? Answer the straight question. n/t.
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#164
So, what's stopping you? Get you a lawyer and sue the Feds! If you are so confident that
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#66
Hey, you're the one who made the claim that such a tax is unconstitutional. It's not, of course:
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#73
Let's not. You claim Congress has no power to tax ammunition, Congress claims it does, and taxes
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#79
"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words.
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#86
Ahhh, the old "I didn't mean what I typed" defense. Sure. There's time to edit your post on DU3,
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#91
I plainly quoted your own words back to you un-edited and un-"choppped": there's still time to edit
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#95
Nope: quoted you directly, YOUR words. Either own them or edit them. n/t.
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#99
"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words.
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#103
"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words.
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#111
Are you seriously saying you didn't read the body of the post you're regurgitating?
X_Digger
Dec 2012
#113
Trying to change the subject again: I would too, were I you. Own your words or edit them. n/t.
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#114
BTW, Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted, and the courts would affirm it.
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#122
You've been "out of material" since your opening reply was proven false. Link:
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#134
No need: unlike you, I stand by my words and posts. But keep dodging: the link ain't going away:
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#136
Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted, and the courts would affirm it.
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#140
No, it's because Congress has the right to tax ammo to its heart's content, and there's not a court
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#143
So, if Congress did raise to $100 a box you'd be okay with it because of the "PR Act"? Great!
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#144
Good: at least you now concede Congress CAN tax ammunition, after all those posts to the contrary
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#151
Not a bit of it: you declared such taxes "unconstitutional" in this reply:
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#160
"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words.
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#175
Of course, if Congress raised it to a $100 a round you'd have to be "fine with it," too, or find
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#153
No, congress would have to justify such an increase to meet the burden of strict scrutiny.
X_Digger
Dec 2012
#155
No, it wouldn't. Congress could raise it to a MILLION dollars a round, and the courts
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#169
Also, this post, where X_Digger claims Congress can't tax ammo, even though Congress does:
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#145
"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words.
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#152
Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted, and the courts would affirm it.
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#158
I am quoting the complete sentence from your subject line; you can quit pretending anything is being
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#163
You initiated this entire sub-thread by claiming that my tax proposal was "unconstitutional": when
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#156
All laws / taxes / regs are constitutional until they aren't. That's not semantics, that's history.
X_Digger
Dec 2012
#159
So, is the Congressional tax on ammo constitutional, or not? Answer the straight question. n/t.
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#161
All legislative acts are presumed to be constitutional until they're ruled as not. (procedure aside)
X_Digger
Dec 2012
#177
BTW, you did declare such taxes "unconstitutional" (link below with money quote):
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#176
No, actually, I didn't declare such taxes unconstitutional.. just your proposal..
X_Digger
Dec 2012
#179
My "proposal" is already constitutional because ammo is already taxed: my proposal would
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#182
Circular reasoning- by that *cough* logic, no law would ever be unconstitutional because it passed.
X_Digger
Dec 2012
#186
No, it is not "circular reasoning": I don't think you understand what "circular reasoning" is.
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#199
"is already constitutional because ammo is already taxed" -- therefore, any law that is implemented
X_Digger
Dec 2012
#207
NO, it is not: again, you simply do not grasp the concept of what it means to engage in "circular
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#221
Is the Congressional tax on ammo constitutional, or not? Answer the question put to you.
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#174
The law taxing ammo - no matter how high the rate was increased - would never be found
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#178
Congress's taxing power isn't absolute. What gives you the notion that it is? n/t
X_Digger
Dec 2012
#180
Is the Congressional tax on ammo constitutional, or not? Answer the question put to you.
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#181
Quit dodging: is the tax on ammo constitutional, or nay? It's not a hard question,
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#185
"It is constitutional until it isn't" - Pretty much sums it up your bizarre pretzel-logic throughout
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#194
But this entire sub-thread was started by your insistence that such taxation was "unconstitutional":
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#187
"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words.
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#195
"And with that, I'm done." - You were done a long time ago, as the facts are on my side.
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#196
We certainly wouldn't want "undesirables" to be able to afford to buy dangerous weapons
slackmaster
Dec 2012
#40
I see now why you quietly self-deleted that reply where you promised to ignore my posts.
apocalypsehow
Dec 2012
#45
Everyone knows that you are a master baiter, and I'm not going to fall for it.
slackmaster
Dec 2012
#127