He’s Right, You Know: Gun Control Aimed at Shooters

Pick off the most enthusiastic, and you’ll be rid of your deplorable gun culture in a generation. That’s what gun control is intended to do. It has nothing at all to do with reducing crime or fighting “gun violence.” Does this lawmaker seriously want us to believe she has evidence that criminals are going through large volumes of ammunition, and that a tax on ammo will help? J. KB is absolutely right: this is intended to discourage target shooting. Someone should ask her who drafted her bill, because lawmakers almost never draft their own bills. Bills are almost universally drafted by staff with the help of lobbyists. Who’s paying the lobbyists that helped her staff? I can give you one guess.

13 thoughts on “He’s Right, You Know: Gun Control Aimed at Shooters”

  1. I’m not sure that’s not giving the pols too much credit.

    Judging from how rando gun-no-likers talk, it might just be amorphous “anything we can do against guns because they’re icky and bad”.

    Most of them seem to have never thought about how any of it actually works, for either criminals or spree-shooters.

    (At least “tax all ammo at a million percent!!!” is forthright “effectively ban guns”; somehow nobody ever realizes, when proposing it, that the Supreme Court would shut it down in an instant, if it ever got enacted.)

    1. The pols, for the most part, are patsies. There might be some that take an active interest and run the show. But mostly their staff run things. The office holders are the face. And usually, their staff are going to be helped by lobbyists when they draft legislation, because in most cases they are the only ones who know anything.

  2. Come on. How about 2 guesses? I admit I thought Bloomberg but Soros should never be discounted.

    1. I don’t think Soros is all that involved in our domestic gun control issues. Bloomberg, however, is our domestic gun control issues.

  3. Pingback: ANOTHER ATTACK
  4. Perhaps some of the more knowledgeable readers here can explain why the NRA has never taken the legal approach that taxes and fees cannot be placed on the exercise of a constitutionally protected right? I know of no other constitutionally protected activity that is taxed, do you? And the 24th amendment expressly prohibits a poll tax on voting.

    1. Probably because it would put Pittman-Robertson money at risk. But also, I think it was tried and failed in the 2nd circuit.

      1. Firearms Ownership benefits from Pitman Robertson. The 2nd Circuit came to that kind of conclusion, likely because Pitman Robertson expands and protects hunting access, which in turn, opens up that opportunity to and for Firearms Ownership through hunting.

        What this pig of a State Congresswoman is trying to do is implement this tax to dissuade and deprive all legal avenues of Firearms Ownership.

      2. P-R is not a tax exclusively on ammo and firearms, also.

        A tax exclusively on ammo and firearms would likely fall afoul of the decision that forbade taxing printer’s ink…

        (Likely, not definitely, because “firearms are different”)

        1. Everything is distinguishable from everything else. I forget when in law school that was mentioned as a rule limiting the utility of distinguishing cases from one another.
          Magazines and books are different from newspapers, and presumably the immediacy and need for speed of newspapers would distinguish them from books, yet the First Amendment applies to all three modes of publication. The same with the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and other Amendments. Yet we interpret them all expansively when the SCOTUS wants to, and the Red-headed stepchild Second Amendment narrowly because they want to (HT Alex Kosinsky of the Ninth Circuit). Constitutional rights should be interpreted as Constitutuional Rights, not according to a sliding scale. Strict Scrutiny all the way- none of this intermediate scrutiny or “rational basis test”– Non-laughable test is more like it.

          1. To be fair to the current SCOTUS, it appears there is a strong current opposing the “tiered scrutiny” approach to a lot of rights.

            Remember, as with a lot of “constitutional interpretation” from last century, “tiered scrutiny” is an approach to limit the expansiveness of the 14th amendment for racial reasons…

Comments are closed.