HUGE NEW 2A WIN TODAY in Gun/Ammo Tax Case!

Published on February 20, 2024
Duration: 12:07

This video details a significant legal victory for Second Amendment rights, where the Illinois Appellate Court unanimously ruled against Cook County's gun and ammunition tax. Constitutional attorney Mark W. Smith explains how the court defined 'infringe' using historical lexicography, concluding that targeted taxes on firearms and ammunition hinder constitutional rights and are therefore unconstitutional. The ruling sets a precedent against governments imposing taxes that specifically burden the exercise of fundamental rights.

Quick Summary

The Illinois Appellate Court unanimously ruled Cook County's gun and ammunition tax unconstitutional, defining 'infringe' as 'to hinder or to destroy' based on historical dictionaries. This landmark decision establishes that targeted taxes burdening Second Amendment rights are invalid, drawing parallels to other constitutional rights protections.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Major Second Amendment Legal Victory
  2. 00:41Speaker Intro and Case Background: Vandermyde v. Cook County
  3. 02:16Defining 'Infringe' in the Constitution
  4. 04:35Lexicographical Influence on Legal Rulings
  5. 07:25Tax vs. Fee Distinction
  6. 10:01Legal Precedents and Future Outlook

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the outcome of the Vandermyde v. Cook County case regarding the gun and ammunition tax?

The Illinois Appellate Court, First District, unanimously ruled that Cook County's tax on firearms and ammunition is unconstitutional. The court found that such a tax infringes upon Second Amendment rights by hindering the acquisition of these items.

How did the court define 'infringe' in the context of the Second Amendment?

The court adopted a historical definition of 'infringe' as 'to hinder or to destroy,' drawing from sources like Samuel Johnson’s 1755 Dictionary. This definition was crucial in determining that the tax constituted an infringement on constitutional rights.

Why is the distinction between a tax and a fee important in this legal ruling?

The court determined the ordinance was a tax, not a fee. This distinction is critical because governments can impose fees to cover the cost of services, but they cannot impose targeted taxes specifically on the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights like those protected by the Second Amendment.

What legal precedents were cited to support the ruling against the gun and ammo tax?

The ruling referenced precedents like Minneapolis Star (1983) concerning First Amendment rights and ink/paper taxes, and Harper v. Board of Elections (1966) regarding poll taxes. Illinois Supreme Court precedent on marriage license taxes was also noted.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from The Four Boxes Diner

View all →