Poll taxes and unequal protection
 

A poll tax was often used to prevent minorities from voting - they were disproportionately poor, so all a state had to do was to implement a tax, thereby making participating in an election too costly for the vast majority of the affected group. Making voting expensive was used as a tool to prevent a class of people from doing something they otherwise had a constitutional right to do.

The 24th amendment made this unconstitutional in federal elections and the SCOTUS extended it to state elections in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966); specifically they (SCOTUS) referred to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14A as justification.

It's no revelation that taxation is used as a means of social engineering. Let's say that a state wishes to abolish something - say cigarettes. Rather than banning cigarette manufacture/sales/etc, they put a $100 tax on every cigarette sold. This has the net effect of banning cigarettes (except for the truly wealthy).

Is this constitutional? Is it a type of poll tax? One could argue that no one has a constitutional right to cigarettes, as one does with voting, but the effect is the same - a state (or even I guess the fed) targeting a group of people to purposely inhibit their rights (here I guess "right" could be interpreted as freedom).

That's essentially how marijuana was originally banned, before the more recent Controlled Substances Act. Congress passed a law that no one could buy, sell or trade marijuana without first getting a stamp authorizing such transactions. Then, they merely refused to issue any such stamps.

Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 [wikipedia.org]

So your hypothetical wrt cigarettes isn't as "hypothetical" as one might think. :sadwalk:

People are free to vote against such taxes. Lots of things are banned in many states that many people don't think should be. If "many" becomes "a majority of" things can get unbanned.

What would happen if such a tax were used to render a constitutional right impotent?

8th Amendment.

They already are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons

Not surprisingly, the law comes from the same time period as what smeg posted. Apparently mob rule was in full swing back then.

but since it's a tax - and not a fine, or "punishment".... (nevermind we're not talking about a crime in this case)

As far as I know calling something a fee doesn't prevent the SCOTUS from calling it a tax, what would prevent the opposite?. Does the 8th strictly apply to criminal behavior?

It would seem the ACLU has pursued several excessive fee cases in the name of the first amendment but they don't seem to mention the 8th.

More effed up crap is the result of FDR effing up the country... From grossly expanding the fed via the commerce clause, to the MJ tax stamps that smeg referenced, to the title II weapons.

To make it more illustrative, let's say that en lieu of a weapons ban, taxes were placed on all ammunition (or components to manufacture, for sake of argument) at $100/ea (e.g. a 4 cent 22LR round would now cost $100.04). e.g., prohibitively expensive and with the sole purpose of inhibiting the purpose of owning a gun (a protected 2A right). One could still own a gun, but without ammunition, you'd be better off beating down a perp with it.

Constitutional?

Does social engineering have a limit?

I'd say no, it's unconstitutional, primarily because it involves a fundamental civil liberty such as gun ownership/usage. In orer to survive a constitutional challenge, the govt would have to show that the new tax satisfied strict scrutiny (the highest level of judicial analysis).

Whereas a tax on a non-fundamental right would only have to survive the lower standards of either intermediate scrutiny or the rational basis test.

so how's the test go? what level of tax/punitives is "OK"?

My understanding is that with regard to march permits and the like, fees are allowed to the extent that they offset legitimate government processing expenses. However, they cannot place an undue burden on a fundamental right, and they cannot be used arbitrarily to prevent unpopular groups from protesting.

My thoughts as well. Furthermore, transitioning anything with over 10rd magazines available into "class 3 weapons", per Feinstein's bill, essentially adds a $200 tax to own such a weapon. Under her law a $220 MSRP Ruger 10/22 with a 25rd mag (a glorified pellet gun) would be rated as a class 3 weapon.

In addition to the $200 tax, photographing and fingerprinting would be required. For a working class individual, this equates to taking at least 1/2 a day off of work, or an additional $100 + travel costs tax.

A working class person could own (10) 22lr guns with a sum total invested of $2,200 MSRP (likely half of that if purchased 5 years ago, on sale, or used). He/She would be responsible for $300 x 10 class 3 weapons = $3,000 in taxes on $2,200 worth of pellet guns.

Anybody who does not see the "social architecture" there is likely anti-gun and imposing their own unconstitutional views upon the rest of society.

Yes, America sure would be a better place if we were all walking the streets with machine guns.

off topic gun rant.

If we ever come to a point where the federal government has been castrated of most of its power, and we see a world of people walking down the streets with machine guns and smoking joints... We can surely debate the relative benefits of the results.

However, you seem to forget something. Those that want to go on shooting rampages never seem to go where other people have guns.

So it was OK when Jack said that Roosevelt ruined America by outlawing machine guns, but it wasn't off-topic when I replied.

That's the standard sort of double-standard I've come to expect here.

I dont see that post?

Oh, yeah, that's right.

Hey, where was it that Chris Kyle and his friend were killed this week? A gun range, you say? Must have been a gun-free gun range.

I quoted it. Title II weapons were banned during the Roosevelt years -- it was amended in 1968, but basically covers machine guns, grenades, sawed-off shotguns and all sorts of other fun stuff that Jack wants to play with.

OK ironic that those items were banned, mostly in response to a problem the government itself created (prohibition)