Given that you can't tax a right and that the 2nd Amendment has been affirmed several times by the US Supreme Court as a right of the people, shouldn't the $200 tax for short-barrels and suppressors be illegal? Has anyone done any serious research on opening up that can of worms?
I had thought about the same question. The place they might get us is the SCOTUS ruling refered to weapons in common use (which I vehemently dissagree with as any test or standard, but that is how it is now). You would have a lot harder time justifying those items as being in common use, but only BECAUSE they are taxed and regulated. It is an interesting question though.
Although with ammo the way it has been, I don't think a lot of people would actually be taking advantage of their full auto guns. I certainly would be using them sparingly 
I can't afford to shoot my semi-autos as much as I would like. Can't even imagine how expensive it would be taking friends out to let them try my different guns if I had a few full autos.
I can't afford to shoot my semi-autos as much as I would like. Can't even imagine how expensive it would be taking friends out to let them try my different guns if I had a few full autos.
The issue is the "reasonable restrictions" that every affirming opinion contains, including Heller.
So, a challenge to the use tax for automatic weapons will fail, because the government regulation of those items is one rightfully "limited," in the Court's view.
The first step to eliminating the tax is to eliminate the limitation--and not even the current, conservative SCOTUS is going to allow unregulated ownership of machine guns.
