The speech or debate clause of article 1 sec. 6 would likely prevent this.

I see nothing protecting senators from the consequences of their votes.

Give it some thought and you'll realize how important it is that it does.

From http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/separation-of-powers-legislative-immunity.aspx

Yet as your quote states "legislators are protected from liability." They are immune from civil and (almost all) criminal liability for their legislative actions. It is the legislative immunity that flows from the Speech or Debate Clause. "It is the purpose and office of the doctrine of legislative immunity, having its roots as it does in the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 204 (1881), that legislators engaged "in the sphere of legitimate legislative activity," Tenney v. Brandhove, supra, 341 U.S., at 376 , should be protected not only from the consequences of litigation's results but also from the burden of defending themselves." Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U.S. 82 (1967).


As to the Declaration, it is not legal authority.

No attorney is going to sue legislators based on their votes while a legislator because we don't like being sanctioned and reported to the state bar.

.

it's called elections where the voters get to either vote them in or vote them out.

young grasshopper, and you will find enlightenment.

would also have to apply to chemicals, lead, shell casings - maybe even gun purchases

The tax goes to a fund to compensate victims of firearms murders and the governments for the police/EMS and hospitals, etc.

I don't care if it's $100 per bullet. Republicans generally don't seem to give a crap about other people - particularly poor or non-white or non-Christian. But they tend to understand some money arguments when it comes to costing the government.

Now money arguments were the last thing on my mind as this horror unfolded in Califonia (or Sandy Hook or Colorado Planned Parenthood, etc) But think of how much money that mess cost San Bernardino yesterday. Police/EMS/hospital OT. And the state and federal governments. And the victims - funerals, lost income, etc.

If the Republicans are so insistent that these deadly toys be permitted to do damage, then the folks selling these damaging devices should pick up the tab on what they're costing the country.

i'd much rather strict gun control laws but in lieu of that, something like the above might be a bit of a deterrent. It would hurt gun sales so badly, the gun manufacturers might relent to allow gun control lows to lose this tax.

Just a thought - haven't really worked it through and it wouldn't be easy to pass ...

Look up Minneapolis Star Tribune vs. County Assessor - SCOTUS.

The materials required to exercise a constitutional right is covered by the same protection as the right itself.

They tried to severely tax printers ink to punish the newspaper for it's editorial policy. Thereby infringing on the 1st amendment.

Same as trying to infringe the 2nd amendment by playing cute with a cartridge tax.

It cost Chicago about $3.2 million in legal fees to the NRA when they tried to play fast and loose with banning ammunition and shooting ranges.

But give it a try, as long as you're picking up the tab for the legal fees.

It's working its way to the Appellate court where Chicago/Cook County have an 0 and 4 record so far.

As soon as the first "ammo tax" is levied in the real world, a suit will be filed against that too. Probably by the SAF and ISRA.

Chicago and Cook County don't have a good track record for winning these suits.

The Ezell case has already cost them over $2 million for SAF and ISRA legal fees, on top of the $3.2 million for the McDonald case they lost. The legal fees of the winner are paid by the loser of the case. Normal for Civil Rights related cases.

The NRA ILA spent $28 million last year. Bloomberg spent over $50 million, and still lost in Virginia, but I guess it's OK to take money from a racist PoS as long as it's against GUNZ! Roght?

The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision on Monday allowing a Chicago-area gun and magazine ban to stand. Such bans are justifiable, according to the court, merely on the basis that they "may increase the public's sense of safety."

Really?

I guess hes off the scolding list too huh?

it's damned hard to tell.