Administration defends new gun law - $1,000 excise tax on pistols (CNMI - Mariana Islands)

[jonno99]

The administration of Gov. Ralph DLG Torres defended the CNMI’s new gun control laws on Friday as a law that could be “a role model” for other U.S. states and jurisdictions facing seemingly uncontrolled and continued gun violence.

snip

“The Commonwealth has enjoyed a peaceful society through the unique treaty under the Covenant with the United States for 40 some years,” the administration said. “It is the law’s intent that the possession and use of handguns will be for self-defense and not for the indiscriminate use to harm human life or to intimidate.

“We have seen many cases of illegal gun possession and use,” the administration added, “which have needlessly harmed human life. In such instances, government officials and families of victims often call for stricter gun rules to prevent further loss of life.

snip

I fail to see how the new law will control those intent on violence.

I fail to see how making it almost impossible for the poor to defend themselves is fair, or is in any way constitutional (think poll tax).

I DO see an emerging & destructive black market for weapons. iow - MORE violence between competitors (think Al Capone & prohibition).

Govt. FAIL

http://www.saipantribune.com/index.php/administration-defends-new-gun-law/

[Eleanors38]

1. Blatantly unconstitutional, and Prohibition-Proven® Counterproductive.

[flamin lib]

2. No, it's not. The $200 tax on full auto firearms effectively ended the sale of those weapons

to the general public. Taxing is the prerogative of the government and has been upheld as constitutional by SCOTUS.

[melm00se]

3. that is true

however, when the application of a tax interferes with another Constitutionally protected rights (like voting), the Supreme Court has ruled that such a tax is unconstitutional.

While it is possible that a future court might rule otherwise, it is not a stretch to see the applicability of Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections and the 24th Amendment to the CNMI's (or any CONUS location) attempt to levy a tax on an enumerated Constitutional right with the expressly stated purpose of limiting said right.

[flamin lib]

4. According to Heller the 2nd doesn't cover carrying any gun for any reason anywhere.nt

[melm00se]

5. Again true

but I would take your assertion even further by stating that Heller decision also stated that the 2nd amendment is not an unlimited right. This meant that laws restricting concealed carry as well as other restrictions (like no firearms for felons, the mentally ill as well as no firearms in certain kinds of facilities) were, in fact, Constitutional.

The above mentioned excise tax, however, is not limited to Constitutionally permissible restrictions but rather the possession of all handguns regardless if carried or kept in the home. That would fall under the category of a Constitutional no-no.

Additionally, Heller stated that handguns are arms for the purposes of the 2nd amendment and the Heller decision certainly influenced the Radich v. Guerrero decision in the CNMI which found the ban on handguns in the North Marianas Islands was unconstitutional. While this recently passed law is an attempt to circumvent this decision, it will more than likely be struck down as “(a)n unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy" once the case finds itself in front of the Supreme Court (regardless of its ideological make up as a ruling that allows for the passage of a tax on a clearly enumerated right opens up a really big can of worms that could come back and bite us all on the ass maybe not now but 10, 20 30 years down the road).

[benEzra]

8. True, just as the 1stA doesn't cover all speech everywhere.

However, Heller did specifically state that the 2ndA protects guns that are commonly owned for lawful purposes, specifically mentioning handguns as the exemplar. Less-misused, equally common guns (like Title 1 rifles and shotguns) would logically fall under that protection as well, though it was D.C.'s handgun ban that was the occasion for Heller's suit and the ruling.

Heller did uphold the existing restrictions on "dangerous and unusual" weapons, specifically naming tightly controlled Title 2 weapons as the exemplar of that category. So it is pretty clear that the court intended to preserve the de facto consensus that we have had for decades; non-automatics own-able by mentally competent adults with clean records, self-defense specifically protected, howitzers/explosives/machineguns more tightly controlled.

There is absolutely no way whatsoever that a ban (de facto or literal) on handgun ownership by mentally competent adults with clean records can be squared with the Heller ruling, since Heller (and McDonald) were specifically *about* handgun bans, and D.C.'s was struck down.

[Eleanors38]

6. The 24th Amend (1964) prohibits a poll tax or any other tax...

to be levied on the right to vote. This amendment would effectively set a precedent on preventing a tax on the exercise of any constitutional right, just as onerous expenses for parade permits and police overtime have been ruled unconstitutional restrictions on the right to assemble and speak.

IMO, the tax on full-auto weapons could be seen in the same light, but most folks (including myself) have not bothered to challenge it. At any rate, the present tax would hardly constitute an impediment to sale of these weapons. More likely is the lack of market for full-autos, given their price, and possibly the yielding up of other constitutional rights; notably, search & seizure.

[ileus]

7. Hopefully the people will tell the "government" to FO.

[ileus]

9. A grand is cheap compared to what they really want.

hint, it's not tax dollars they desire most...

[stone space]

10. Comparing the Right to Vote with somebody's hobby is offensive.

It demeans and degrades the basic and fundamental civil and human right of voting, and places the Right to Vote on par with our hobbies.

Come on, now. We all have hobbies.

But the Right to Vote is a basic and fundamental human and civil right, not just somebody's hobby.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. The site (DU) has an entire topic group for hobbies and recreational pursuits

You'll notice this group is located under justice and public safety which acknowledges the ideals of admins that the topic is NOT based on a hobby. For that matter, your posting here acknowledges your own concurrence.

Disingenuity thy nickname is control.

[TeddyR]

12. As is the right to keep and bear arms

In fact, the right to keep and bear arms was considered such a fundamentally important right - along with for example the right to free speech and freedom from illegal searches and seizures - that the founding fathers included an amendment in the bill of rights that prohibits government infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.

[stone space]

13. The absense of a Right to Vote Amendment in the US Constitution does not mean that...

...voting is not a basic and fundamental civil and human right.

I'm not talking about Scriptural passages here from one particular religion or from a constitution of one particular country, and the resulting Arguments From Authority.

I don't care if the "Founding Fathers" or any other religious and/or political authorities that folks may revere failed to support the Right to Vote in their constitution when they wrote it.

Pocan and Ellison Call on Congress to Pass Right to Vote Constitutional Amendment

snip--------------------

SECTION 1: Every citizen of the United States, who is of legal voting age, shall have the fundamental right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides.

SECTION 2: Congress shall have the power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.


https://pocan.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/pocan-and-ellison-to-introduce-right-to-vote-constitutional-amendment

[beergood]

15. according to you

the RKBA is not the same as voting

professors aren't peace officer

lgbt people are not deadly weapons

am i forgetting something?

[TeddyR]

17. I'm not arguing that the right to vote isn't important and shouldn't be protected

I'm simply pointing out that the right to keep and bear arms is one of the civil rights that was deemed so important by the Founding Fathers that it needed to be protected in the Bill of Rights, and has been for over 200 years.

[beevul]

14. But not so offensive that you'll stop making the comparison.

Comparing the Right to Vote with somebody's hobby is offensive.

But not so offensive that you'll stop making the comparison.

It demeans and degrades the basic and fundamental civil and human right of voting, and places the Right to Vote on par with our hobbies.

A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwis0M_zkaXMAhVC7mMKHQJQDHUQFggnMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.cornell.edu%2Fwex%2Fcivil_rights&usg=AFQjCNEdBStWOnoi4X2NoiyNOwbsOpHnrQ

Gee, who should we listen to? Cornell law or mr calculolz teacher? Hmm...Tough choice.

Come on, now. We all have hobbies.

For most of us, "hobby" is not defined as trying to see how many hides we can personally accrue.

But the Right to Vote is a basic and fundamental human and civil right, not just somebody's hobby.

The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutionally protected civil right.

[jonno99]

16. Sorry, yours is a vacuous argument -

the Right to Vote is a basic and fundamental human and civil right

The "right to vote" pales in comparison to the right to defend ones self and ones family.

We've seen plenty of countries where the citizens have the "right to vote" - for whomever the dictator happens to be.

What good is having a vote - without also having life and liberty?