Tag: constitutional rights

News

Colorado’s New Tax: A Costly Infringement on Second Amendment Rights

Mark Schneider

Starting on April 1, 2025, Colorado will implement a 6.5% excise tax on firearms, firearm precursor parts, and ammunition. While lawmakers are touting this as a measure to generate funding for crime victim services, mental health initiatives, and school safety programs, this new tax is raising serious concerns about its constitutionality and impact on gun owners’ rights.

Approved by voters through Proposition KK in November 2024, the tax aims to raise an estimated $39 million annually. However, critics argue that it is a direct infringement on Second Amendment rights. The measure places a financial burden on law-abiding gun owners, making it more expensive to exercise a constitutionally protected right. By taxing firearms and ammunition, the state is essentially penalizing citizens for owning and using guns legally.

Supporters of the Second Amendment contend that this is a backdoor attempt to limit access to firearms and ammo by making them more expensive, especially for lower-income individuals who rely on firearms for personal protection. Gun control advocates may claim that the money will fund public safety programs, but many see this as a disguised attack on gun rights that unfairly targets those who are simply exercising their legal rights.

Moreover, this new tax could have a chilling effect on citizens’ ability to protect themselves, particularly for those in high-crime areas or in professions where carrying a firearm is necessary for personal safety. The idea that gun ownership should come with an added financial burden is, at its core, unconstitutional. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, and imposing taxes or fees that disproportionately affect gun owners and shooters seems to go against the very principles this country was founded on.

As with any tax, the financial burden will likely fall heaviest on those who need it least—law-abiding gun owners who are already required to undergo training, background checks, and follow strict regulations. In effect, this tax could price out responsible gun owners while doing little to curb criminal activity. After all, criminals don’t purchase their weapons legally—they acquire them on the black market, untouched by such taxes.

The Colorado Firearms Excise Tax is yet another step in the long line of government overreach, chipping away at Second Amendment protections. For those who truly believe in the rights of American citizens to bear arms, this tax is not just an inconvenience, but a clear violation of the very freedoms enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

It’s time for lawmakers to recognize that the right to bear arms should not come with a hefty price tag—the cost of freedom should not be measured in taxes. If the government is truly interested in reducing crime and making communities safer, they should focus on real solutions, not on penalizing gun owners for exercising their rights. This new tax is not only a burden but also a direct assault on constitutional freedoms.

Legal & Law, News

Ghost Guns and the Constitution: Why the Supreme Court Got It Wrong

Mark Schneider
A Picture of an AR-15 “Ghost Gun” lower. Photo Credit to Mitch Barrie.

The recent Supreme Court ruling upholding the Biden administration’s regulations on so-called “ghost guns” is a dangerous step toward eroding the Second Amendment. These homemade firearms, which have been legally manufactured by individuals for centuries, are now being subjected to burdensome regulations that redefine what constitutes a firearm. The ruling in Garland v. VanDerStok represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution and the historical rights of Americans to build their own weapons.

Manufacturing Firearms: A Right, Not Just a Commercial Practice

The ability to manufacture firearms has never been limited solely to commercial entities. Throughout American history, citizens have had the right to craft their own firearms without government interference. The Supreme Court’s decision now treats this as a regulated commercial practice rather than an individual liberty. This ruling does not align with the original intent of the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to “keep and bear arms”—a right that extends to making those arms.

How the Supreme Court Got It Wrong

The Court’s majority opinion claims that kits allowing individuals to assemble firearms quickly fall within the regulatory scope of the ATF. However, this interpretation oversteps congressional authority and contradicts previous rulings that emphasize a historical approach to gun regulation. The Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 did not intend for the federal government to regulate individual gun-making activities in this way. Justice Clarence Thomas, in his dissent, correctly pointed out that the ATF was never given the power to regulate firearm parts or objects that could be “readily converted” into firearms. By allowing this new definition, the Supreme Court has set a precedent that could allow further encroachments on gun rights.

The Slippery Slope of Gun Control

The decision to classify gun kits as firearms is an arbitrary expansion of government power. If an unassembled kit is a firearm, what stops regulators from going after individual parts or even raw materials that could be used to make a gun? This ruling opens the door for more intrusive policies that undermine the Second Amendment under the guise of public safety. The reality is that most gun crimes are committed with traditionally manufactured firearms, not homemade ones, making this ruling more about restricting lawful gun owners than stopping criminals.

A Call to Action

Americans must push back against judicial overreach and demand that Congress and state legislatures reaffirm the rights of individuals to make their own firearms. The right to bear arms is meaningless if citizens cannot legally obtain or manufacture them. As we have seen throughout history, government overreach in gun regulation is rarely reversed without active opposition.

The Supreme Court had an opportunity to uphold constitutional principles, but instead, it chose to allow bureaucratic overreach to dictate new firearm restrictions. This fight is far from over, and gun owners must stay vigilant to protect their rights.

News

Judge VanDyke Stands Strong for Second Amendment Rights

Mark Schneider

In a courageous and unapologetic defense of the Second Amendment, Judge Lawrence VanDyke of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit recently posted a video in which he gave a powerful demonstration on firearms. In this video, VanDyke disassembled several handguns from his office to shed light on a vital issue—the flawed California ban on large-capacity magazines—and to help educate the public and his colleagues on the importance of understanding firearms before making life-altering legal decisions.

Judge VanDyke’s message was clear: In the case of Duncan vs. Bonta, the court’s ruling to uphold California’s ban was based on a lack of real understanding of firearms. He felt it was necessary to step up and show that those making decisions on gun laws should have firsthand knowledge of the items they seek to regulate. His decision to post the video was not an act of rebellion, but an effort to foster greater transparency, knowledge, and responsibility when it comes to critical constitutional matters.

While his colleagues quickly criticized the video, calling it “improper,” VanDyke’s action can be seen as an attempt to bridge a gap—ensuring that judges and lawmakers involved in gun law cases have a genuine understanding of firearms and their function. How can anyone reasonably make decisions on matters like magazine capacity if they lack even the basic understanding of how these tools work?

The ruling in this case, which upheld California’s ban, ignores a fundamental principle: California’s magazine restrictions infringe on Americans’ rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment. VanDyke’s dissenting stance serves as a reminder that laws should protect individual rights, not undermine them, and that the legal system must account for real-world implications when deciding on constitutional freedoms.

Attorney General Rob Bonta, who celebrated the ruling, claimed that the ban is essential to combat gun violence. However, many argue that such laws do little to deter criminals and only limit the rights of law-abiding citizens who wish to protect themselves. The Second Amendment is a right, not a privilege, and as such, it should not be subjected to arbitrary restrictions.

VanDyke’s actions, though controversial to some, stand as a powerful reminder that judges must truly understand the issues at hand, especially when they relate to fundamental constitutional rights like those in the Second Amendment. It is refreshing to see a judge stand up and demand a better understanding of firearms before making rulings that affect the very rights that define this country.