Where Does the Scotus Ruling Lead?

Miguel has an interesting and upsetting post up. He points out that the NFA is now legally very similar to Obamacare. Its a tax, not a ban, nor a restriction. He points out the people killed in Waco and Ruby Ridge were killed for tax evasion. Same goes for the various moonshiners who have butted heads with the ATF over their stills. Now Healthcare.

Still Daniel in Brookline sent me this article from Hot Air.

First, the government needs to issue a mandate that all households must own at least one firearm. We will need a federal agency to ensure that people aren’t just buying cheap BB guns or .22 pistols, even though that may be all they need or want. It has to be 9mm or above, with .44 magnums getting a one-time tax credit on their own. Let’s pick an agency known for its aptitude on firearms and home protection to issue required annual certifications each year, without which the government will have to levy hefty fines. Which agency would do the best job? Hmmmm … I know! How about TSA? With their track record of excellence, we should have no problems implementing this mandate.

Don’t want to own a gun? Hey, no worries. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts says citizens have the right to refuse to comply with mandates. The government will just seize some of your cash in fines, that’s all. Isn’t choice great? Those fines will go toward federal credits that will fund firearm purchases for the less well off, so that they can protect their homes as adequately as those who can afford guns on their own. Since they generally live in neighborhoods where police response is appreciably worse than their higher-earning fellow Americans, they need them more anyway. Besides — gun ownership is actually mentioned in the Constitution, unlike health care, which isn’t. Obviously, that means that the federal government should be funding gun ownership.

I guess the slippery slope goes both ways.

Further Lee Dorin mirrors what Borepatch said on the latest Squirrel Report

They SCOTUS didn’t make a ruling on the law, simply telling the people what the law was and let us decide for ourselves. This slippery slope can slide any way…or not at all. Its up to us.

These are interesting times….

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Where Does the Scotus Ruling Lead?

  1. All drug regulation is based on a tax rationale as well.

  2. McThag says:

    The vid in a nutshell: “There’s more bread than I expected in my shit sammich! HURRAH!”

  3. Cargosquid says:

    Obama is STILL saying that this is a penalty, not a tax. I say take him at his word and declare it to be unconstitutional. I mean…who are we to argue with our anointed one?

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Just keep paying him out rope and maybe give him a book on knot tying. He’ll figure it out!

    • Jack says:

      I find that hilarious too.

      The law’s only constitutional as a tax, and what do they do? Keep blathering that it’s not a tax.

      Do they realize that people, even the most anti-Roberts conservative, is going to take Robert’s opinion on the tax over Dear Reader’s?

      Keep pulling that chicken!

      The tax thing is the only upside here, not that a bar on Commerce Clause means anything (as a subsequent ruling can “fix” that), but that by calling it a tax these roaches have to spin this way.

      If Roberts had gone full Commerce Clause then their “it’s a penalty” claptrap would have been more believable.

  4. Cargosquid says:

    Since the Congress voted on a penalty, but it was argued to be a tax and decided upon as a tax, does that mean we might have ANOTHER case that could be done? No taxation without representation. It was NOT voted upon as a tax. It did not begin in the House.

Leave a Reply to Jack Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *