Good News From Illinois

Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
4,889
Reaction score
5,134
Location
Oklahoma
hope not a repost
if this is better posted elsewhere, mods please move.
dunno what this may do to Pittman-Robertson act???


Gun, ammunition taxes ruled unconstitutional by Ill Supreme Court

chicago.suntimes.com

Two Cook County taxes targeting firearms and ammunition are in jeopardy after the Illinois Supreme Court found they violate the state constitution.

In a 6-0 decision, Supreme Court Justice Mary Jane Theis wrote the county's firearm and ammunition tax ordinances violate the constitution's uniformity clause, and the taxes "impose a burden on the exercise of a fundamental right protected by the second amendment."

"While the taxes do not directly burden a law-abiding citizen's right to use a firearm for self-defense, they do directly burden a law-abiding citizen's right to acquire a firearm and the necessary ammunition for self-defense," Theis wrote.

"Under the plain language of the ordinances, the revenue generated from the firearm tax is not directed to any fund or program specifically related to curbing the cost of gun violence," she wrote. "Thus, we hold the tax ordinances are unconstitutional under the uniformity clause."

That opinion, in the case of non-profit Guns Save Life Inc. versus Cook County, the county's director of the department of revenue, Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, partially reverses decisions from the Cook County Circuit and state appellate courts that upheld the taxes and sends the case back to the circuit court for summary judgment in favor of the non-profit.
 
Register to hide this ad
"Under the plain language of the ordinances, the revenue generated from the firearm tax is not directed to any fund or program specifically related to curbing the cost of gun violence," she wrote. "Thus, we hold the tax ordinances are unconstitutional under the uniformity clause."

They just provided the blueprint to taxing gun owners to oblivion. Just call it a tax to curb the cost of gun violence and tax away to your little hearts content. This, in my opinion, falls under the heading of be careful what you wish for.
 
"Under the plain language of the ordinances, the revenue generated from the firearm tax is not directed to any fund or program specifically related to curbing the cost of gun violence," she wrote. "Thus, we hold the tax ordinances are unconstitutional under the uniformity clause."

They just provided the blueprint to taxing gun owners to oblivion. Just call it a tax to curb the cost of gun violence and tax away to your little hearts content. This, in my opinion, falls under the heading of be careful what you wish for.

Court decisions often provide the losing party a road map for a better bite at the apple. A link to the court's decision:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/jnswire/jn.../cookcounty_gun_taxes_il_supreme_10-21-21.pdf

In addition to a tax being directed to a program designed to curb deaths caused by misuse of guns the government must show results.

On page 8, paragraphs 28/29 the court states the ability to acquire ammo for practice is protected and that's a worthwhile position in our favor.

I agree there is a concern that IL or a similar state, such as CA, NY, NJ or the federal government would commission a "study" and follow up with a tax based on their results.

Not to stray too far afield, but we do have the Pittman tax on ammo/ That is designed and one would presume actually used for hunting and conservation. As you mention, a blueprint for anti-gun efforts?
 
Last edited:
Then there is the loooong waits for firearms owner ID cards (required in Illinois to possess firearms or ammunition) and CCLs, while the governor, with the aid of the legislature, "balances" the state budget in part by taking milli0ns from the fees for FOIDs and CCLs and throwing it into the state's general fund.
As soon as I can sell up, I'll move the hell out of here.
 
The Pittman/Robertson act was passed by sportsmen to support wildlife habitat. Completely different…

Pittman–Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act

If we accept that a tax on guns and ammo is acceptable when directly linked, by legislative language and in actual practice, to the specific goal of furthering conservation and hunting how do we object if the same standards are met with respect to "gun violence"?

The court's decision does take into account that purchasing guns or ammo is necessary to the exercise of a fundamentally protected right and that a tax even "de minimis" can be seen as an infringement, such as the $10.00 tax on a marriage license. Still, it seems to me narrowly drafted legislation and application of tax revenue following one of those "guns cause crime" commission studies could be troublesome.

To be clear, this is not something I support. I think it points out how devious and determined anti-gunners are today. They are a modern day version of long ago segregationists so far as the methods they use re legislature and courts. But there is, it seems to me, an "opposite side of the same coin" similarity.

Pittman-Roberston is acceptable to raise $$$ for wetlands and hunting but a tax to "save lives" (they'll say) is unacceptable? I think we've got to go deeper to fight it.
 
Last edited:
Remember that simple wording changes can revitalize a bill. Happened not long ago.

When gunowners pointed out there's no such thing as the "gun show loophole" and that the law for selling applies there as it does the rest of a state, and that an AR 15 was no different than a Mini 14 the response wasn't "thanks for the clarification" and treating the AR like an M1 carbine. It was the opposite - a push to ban all "paperless sales" via UBC and in some states trying to treat an M1 like an AR by banning them.

These folks never, ever give up. It's not that they're OK with some of us have some types of a gun. They don't want anyone to have any kind of gun. Period. We've got to have iron clad defenses against their efforts.
 
Last edited:
when do we get reimbursed for the Gun, ammunition taxes ruled unconstitutional?

if illegal taxes can be collected and retained by a government, without recourse from the public.......

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxgagXVqZZM[/ame]
 
When gunowners pointed out there's no such thing as the "gun show loophole" and that the law for selling applies there as it does the rest of a state, and that an AR 15 was no different than a Mini 14 the response wasn't "thanks for the clarification" and treating the AR like an M1 carbine. It was the opposite - a push to ban all "paperless sales" via UBC and in some states trying to treat an M1 like an AR by banning them.

These folks never, ever give up. It's not that they're OK with some of us have some types of a gun. They don't want anyone to have any kind of gun. Period. We've got to have iron clad defenses against their efforts.

Keep reading this. Again and Again and Again.
 
"Under the plain language of the ordinances, the revenue generated from the firearm tax is not directed to any fund or program specifically related to curbing the cost of gun violence," she wrote. "Thus, we hold the tax ordinances are unconstitutional under the uniformity clause."

They just provided the blueprint to taxing gun owners to oblivion. Just call it a tax to curb the cost of gun violence and tax away to your little hearts content. This, in my opinion, falls under the heading of be careful what you wish for.

Like I said, the ruling was just a blueprint.

Chicago reinstates gun and ammunition tax after court deems it unconstitutional | Fox News
 

Latest posts

Back
Top