Recent comments in /f/Connecticut

GlamorousBunchberry t1_j9vbsbj wrote

>It's kinda funny 2a people are even upset because of how insignificant it is.

In that sense it's a bit like pat-downs in the airport: it's kind of infuriating to know that not only is this chungus feeling me up, but also that it's doing absolutely nothing to make anyone even a little bit safer.

7

GlamorousBunchberry t1_j9v9wum wrote

It's obviously not an infringement of the 2A. Folks who get outraged about this are reacting not so much to the tax itself as to what they perceive as the legislators' motives. If hypothetically they'd set the tax at $5 per round, I think it would be easy to see their viewpoint.

For comparison, machine guns are still legal to own in most of the US. The National Firearms Act of 1934 decided to tax them instead of banning them. The tax, $400, is negligible today, but at the time it was the equivalent of over $4K in present-day dollars. It was ample to keep poor and minorities from owning these guns, while it was barely an inconvenience to the wealthy.

* And they went the taxation route because they believed at the time that a ban would have been struck down as unconstitutional. They were explicitly trying to reduce ownership of machine guns without ever resorting to a ban.

** What really cut down their availability was the 1986 ban on manufacture or importation of machine guns for civilian use. All machine guns in circulation today were manufactured pre-1986.

−1