This is unconstitutional and will be struck down as such.
Edit: to the person that asked what makes poll taxes unconstitutional…that would be the amendment to the constitution that literally makes it unconstitutional.
You mean, before Bruen the court acted like that first clause of the 2A was more than just flavor text.
I refer you to this thread[1] of dozens of sources that show the only pre-20th century view is the individual right view consistent with Heller, McDonald, and Bruen.
> The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.
~ Thomas Cooley 1898 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645290273902305280
> The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people.
~ William Rawle 1825 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645290263299117056
> Mr. Eliot, of Massachusetts, who had charge of the bill in the House, moved an amendment to the seventh section by inserting as one of the rights to which negroes were entitled "the constitutional right to bear arms." Since the House adopted this amendment, which was also concurred in by the Senate, it is evident that the right to bear arms was regarded as one of the rights pertaining to citizens, and as this right is secured by the Second Amendment, it may reasonably be inferred that the other rights and privileges secured or enumerated by the first eight Amendments were also regarded as belonging to all persons.
> Horace Edgar Flack 1908 ~ The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645290276993527810
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms. object of this clause is to secure a well-armed militia. It has always been the policy of free governments to dispense, as far as possible, with standing armies, and to rely for their defence, both against foreign invasion and domestic turbulence, upon the militia. Regular armies have always been associated with despotism. But a militia would be useless unless the citizens were enabled to exercise themselves in the use of warlike weapons. To preserve this privilege, and to secure to the people the ability to oppose themselves in military force against the usurpations of government, as well as against enemies from without, that government is forbidden by any law or proceeding to invade or destroy the right to keep and bear arms.
~ John Norton Pomeroy 1868 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645290278520254464
These are a few excerpts from this longer thread https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1645290263299117056
You're just picking out the bits you like.
In what way are you not free to buy guns, ammo, &c when there is a tax on them?
Are you saying convicted (and possibly violent) felons should be able to buy guns?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[0]
M-W Definition of infringe: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
My questions:
To what degree is it okay to increase profit (see list below) from the sale of firearms? 1) by the manufacturer? 2) by the government(s) that bears a burden of firearm misuse? 3) by the government(s) that provides for the infrastructure to make and distribute firearms?
[0] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/
https://www.heritage.org/the-essential-second-amendment/the-...
(For why, understand that the framers themselves understood that a constitution cannot contain its own undoing, i.e. contain clauses that would allow the people to lawfully dismantle their own government. 2A interpretations that hinge on the individual’s right to overthrow a hypothetically tyrannical federal government fly in the face of this.)
~ Henry Flanders 1860 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645290303832858627
> Some tyrannical governments resort to disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, or participate in military parades. In all countries where despots rule with standing armies, the people are not allowed to keep guns and other warlike weapons.
~ Joseph Bartlett Burleigh 1852 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645292036277547009
> This provision is so plainly proper that its propriety need not be argued. It will be sufficient to contrast it with the practice of despotic governments, who, while they maintain large standing armies, at all times subservient to their pleasure, will not allow arms in the hands of the common people.
~ Rev. Daniel Parker 1848 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645292053784559616
> Right to Bear Arms - To deny the right of citizens to bear arms is a means employed by despotic rulers to enforce arbitrary government. Without such clause, ambitious men might, by the aid of the regular army, overthrow the liberties of the people.
~ Albert E Maltby 1909 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645293391234863105
A long thread of many sources: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1645290263299117056
Put another way: someone equally interested in frivolous arguments about the 1A could surely dig up “common sense” opinions from the 19th century about how blasphemy, obscenity, &c. are all reasonably excluded from the franchise. But that doesn’t make them correct.
This is why the Bruen opinion is so great. It uses the historical understanding approach. Which should be applied to the 1A as well.
Here's an example of the conservative AEI making essentially the same point[1]: that a constitutionally framed democratic sovereign cannot enshrine a right of revolution, even if the individual right of revolution is an inalienable one. This is basic political theory, whether you choose to take a historical approach or not.
[1]: https://www.aei.org/articles/is-there-an-american-right-of-r...
It doesn't mean that the village idiot gets a gun to threaten and start fights with.
The government cannot in anyway restrict the peoples access to firearms nor artificially increase the price by specifically taxing the right. Since the right involves commerce, I see no issue in a general sales tax applying to it.
However, the government may not restrict an individual from manufacturing his own weapons and there may be no tax on those.