Jump to content

Todd V sues Cook County (class action) for reinstating gun/ammo tax


Recommended Posts

In Todd we trust. 

 

Crook county has been collecting these taxes illegally, told not to, so they changed where they deposit them, and started collecting them again.  They should have to return all the taxes collected and then some.  In the meantime, this is dragged through the courts for years while the crooks keep counting their money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 11:30 AM, mab22 said:

I wasn’t quite sure where this was going, but I figured out the taxation relationship. 

Given today’s SCOTUS ruling, might be a slam dunk case.

 

Were there excess taxes on guns and ammo in 1791? If there were (there wasn’t), were said taxes used to “fund” other government pet projects? Nope. Case closed 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Molly B. pinned this topic
  • 4 months later...
  • 2 months later...
  • 4 weeks later...

@Tvandermyde@Upholder@Euler

 

This was a very informative 7 minute video!!!!
So, if I try the same thing as he does in the video by combining the cases. (Hopefully I got the spelling of the cases correct.)
Minneapolis V star tribune. Tax on Ink unconstitutional.
Harper V state board of education. Pole tax, and right to vote.
*Cannot tax constitutional rights.
Add
Illinois supreme court - Boinken v cusper 1986. State supreme court relied on Minneapolis V star tribune.
McDonald v Chicago - Part of it was about banning Gun ranges which was found unconstitutional, I believe.

Wouldn't using a Gun range for legal purposes be protected under the 2nd amendment, and therefore taxing the use of the range be considered unconstitutional?


Some municipalities charge an "amusement tax" to use a Gun range. I know Dundee does.

 

When it comes to TAX vs fee vs fine the Barry Care case discusses it, when Roberts did contortions to make it work.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-393

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets do the same thing but direct it at the fees for the FOID and Concealed Carry Permit, prints, etc.

Minneapolis V star tribune. Tax on Ink unconstitutional.
Harper V state board of education. Pole tax, and right to vote can't tax or fee it.
Cannot tax/fee constitutional rights.
Add
Illinois supreme court - Boinken v cusper 1986. State supreme court relied on Minneapolis V star tribune. Cannot charge for a marrage permit.

Voting does not require a permit, nor can you charge a tax on it.
The right to vote is a constitutional right. The FEES for ensuring a "citizens" is "legally allowed to vote", is baked into our taxes, it's shared by all citizens of the state.

 

Shouldn't FEE's insuring a "citizen of the state" is legally allowed to possess a firearm (think FOID), a constitutional right, be shared by all citizens
and covered by the state? Any lawful citizen at any time can purchase a firearms for lawful use.

 

Seeing as how the state of Illinois FOID law outright prohibits open carry, using the example above, shouldn't the FEE's for obtaining a concealed carry permit,
a constitutional right, be shared by all citizens and covered by the state?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/26/2023 at 8:35 AM, Plinkermostly said:

Pretty much same with the ammo tax -- assumed unconstitutional at the time -- yet here we still are.

We believe it is, it takes the Courts to back us up, and often they don't like to upset the apple cart with big changes. 

 

We have to believe in the courts, otherwise it's gonna be messy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...