Illinois Supreme Court Rules Unconstitutional Tax on Guns and Ammo

[12151791]

BY LORENZ DUCHAMPS

October 23, 2021 Updated: October 23, 2021

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled on Oct. 21 that two taxes on guns and ammunition in Cook County violate the state’s constitution because they affect law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment right to acquire firearms for self-defense.
Supreme Court Justice Mary Jane Theis wrote in a 6–0 decision that the taxes violate the constitution’s uniformity clause, while also pointing out that the revenue from the generated tax isn’t directed toward funds or programs that reduce gun violence.
“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 in a 14-page opinion (pdf) filed on Thursday.
“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 noted. “Additionally, nothing in the ordinance indicates that the proceeds generated from the ammunition tax must be specifically directed to initiatives aimed at reducing gun violence.”
The justice concluded that the case will be remanded to the circuit court “for entry of summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs.”

Illinois Supreme Court Rules Tax on Guns and Ammo Unconstitutional

www.theepochtimes.com

 

[Notacop]

Nfa next, oh wait they're spineless

 

[TripleO7]

Nfa next, oh wait they're spineless

It's a state supreme court, but refreshing to hear none the less

 

[Howland]

I didn't read the briefs or the decision but I doubt I would lose money if I wagered that the original action did not object to the statute because wasn't done for a good enough reason, rather it objected to the statute because it did that which is forbidden by the Constitution.

From the article it seems that the court offers the state a path out by simply creating a morally virtuous purpose for doing that which is forbidden by the Constitution. Which is exactly what they will do.

All better. Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

 

[Jerzsubbie]

I didn't read the briefs or the decision but I doubt I would lose money if I wagered that the original action did not object to the statute because wasn't done for a good enough reason, rather it objected to the statute because it did that which is forbidden by the Constitution.

From the article it seems that the court offers the state a path out by simply creating a morally virtuous purpose for doing that which is forbidden by the Constitution. Which is exactly what they will do.

All better. Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

You’re on the right track.

The court ruled that the tax was not permitted because of a state uniformity law which requires funds to be used as stated. The law states the tax would be used for firearms safety and “gun violence” programs but most funds were diverted.

The court did not rule that the tax itself was illegal/unconstitutional. One judge did comment that it was unconstitutional but did not officially dissent.

 

[Jerzsubbie]

 

[Jayne]

The court ruled that the tax was not permitted because of a state uniformity law which requires funds to be used as stated. The law states the tax would be used for firearms safety and “gun violence” programs but most funds were diverted.

So poll taxes are totally OK as long as they're directed at fighting voter fraud? (in their view, not yours).

 

[Jerzsubbie]

So poll taxes are totally OK as long as they're directed at fighting voter fraud? (in their view, not yours).

I believe it depends on what the original stated purpose of the tax is. So if there was a gun/ammo tax that said it would be used to fund playgrounds, and they built playgrounds, it would be OK. Poll taxes would fail regardless.

 

[Goofyfoot2001]

Dumb ruling as the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with self defense, only national defense.

 

[Jayne]

I believe it depends on what the original stated purpose of the tax is. So if there was a gun/ammo tax that said it would be used to fund playgrounds, and they built playgrounds, it would be OK. Poll taxes would fail regardless.

Then why would a poll tax fail? If they said they're going to tax the pen you used to fill out the ballot (no, you can't bring your own you have to buy it at the poll) and use the money for playgrounds, and then did that... how is that not the same? Hey, we're not restricting your rights, we're just making you pay extra for them so we can fund something else.

 

[Jerzsubbie]

Then why would a poll tax fail? If they said they're going to tax the pen you used to fill out the ballot (no, you can't bring your own you have to buy it at the poll) and use the money for playgrounds, and then did that... how is that not the same? Hey, we're not restricting your rights, we're just making you pay extra for them so we can fund something else.

I’m no legal scholar but I believe poll taxes have been clearly established as being unconstitutional.

The issue here is Cool County went afoul of IL state law. The outcome is favorable but not ideal because of the court’s weak reasoning. Cook County will simply revamp the tax.