|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
CNMI: US court: $1,000 tax on handguns unconstitutional
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Judge Manglona said that when Murphy properly renews his gun license, the CNMI government must return the weapons and ammunition he is entitled to possess consistent with this court decision.
She granted Murphy’s motion and declared unconstitutional the firearm registration requirement, the ban on rifles in calibers larger than .223, the ban on assault weapons, the ban on transporting operable firearms, and the $1,000 excise tax.
But Judge Manglona also granted the CNMI government’s motion with respect to the license requirement, the restrictions on storing firearms in the home and the ban on large-capacity magazines. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(9/30/2016)
|
Oh, yeah?
What about a $200 tax on shotguns, is that unconstitutional too?
What justification was there for a magazine ban?
Do the storage restrictions allow home defense, or did the judge disregard Heller v DC? |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
