|
|
|
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:
SC: South Carolina Considers 7 Percent Tax on Gun Sales
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The 7 percent tax would generate about $22 million, the lawmakers said. Currently, some 600 schools lack an SRO, reportedly because the affected school districts lack funding.
While the bill’s sponsors say they are not interested in using it as a stepping stone toward more gun control, they are overlooking the fact that the surcharge might well keep defensive guns out of the hands of those who have less disposable income, and thus could deter some South Carolinians from exercising their Second Amendment rights. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(1/10/2019)
|
This is yer typical unfair taxation of a disfavored minority. It is EVERYONE's responsibility to provide funds for SROs, if that's the path they choose to take, not limited to firearms purchasers.
How anyone cannot look at this and think it stinks defies belief. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
