http://ag.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/agnvg...GO_2016-12.pdf
Goes to show you that 2016 is the year of Miracles, now lets free your state next.
Printable View
http://ag.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/agnvg...GO_2016-12.pdf
Goes to show you that 2016 is the year of Miracles, now lets free your state next.
If it saves one tax dollar, isn't it worth it.
LMAO!! This just made my day.
Was that requirement that dealers contact NICS directly inserted as a poison pill? If so, genius move.
No, Bloomberg's lawyers are incompetent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumline
But they did it in CO "right" by taxing the Constitutionally protected natural right. So what happened in NV?Quote:
Originally Posted by spqrzilla
Quote:
Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo
LOL!
Poll tax lawsuit time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip
More or less the FBI would be forced to pay for Private sale NICS checks, they said "No, we are not required to do so" and sense they are not paying for/will do it the AG said "we will not enforce it as it can not be enforced".
http://www.ammoland.com/2016/12/neva...#axzz4UGSRQDgd
The Nevada law specifically says FBI via NICS has to do the BGC, in CO it specified the state BGC system (which is why the "fee" was added). Frankly Bloomberg had help from Quislings in the CO legislature that he didn't get in NV because NV was a ballot initiative (with no input from the local legislature).Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip
Well that explains the bulk of it but I'm surprised those opportunists didn't seize the moment to create a new state level bureaucracy and make gun owners pay for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
I think Bloomtard had help from more than just the Dems in the state house. I think they had help from CBI, IMHO. These are people who didn't even understand what gun control measure they were voting for (how firearms/mags work). It was Rhonda herself that even got confused on what weapon was used in the murder of her son.
The argument is that if it would have raised taxes or cost the state any money it would have lost (it won by less than 1% of the vote).Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip
But there's no limit to what gun owners can be charged. That's something I find ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
There was a case this year where a $1,000 excise tax was stricken down for being excessive (http://www.guns.com/2016/09/30/court...onstitutional/) but there seems to be a lot of room between $25 and $1,000.
Like SP1 said on page 1, a $0.01 poll tax would be declared unConstitutional in a heartbeat.
That is what you have to love about leftists, their mental gymnastics are just amazing...Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip
A $0.01 poll taxes in unconstitutional but a $200 on the right to keep and bare arms is.
The right to abortion or gay marriage is clearly found in the Constitution but machine guns are not protected.
Illegals have the right to all sorts of tax payer funded programs but we can not deny them any thing because they are a protected class and if we do WE are the criminals...
I reckon if gun owners had to pay $200.00/year to exercise their "right", there would be much greater turn out by gun owners come election time.
I think you can go sleeveless any time you want without paying any additional taxes ...Quote:
Originally Posted by SG1
[ROFL1][ROFL3][ROFL2]
...NFA ring a bell?Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyDrama
Walking up in a new year a little bit freer then last year, and only 20 days before the God Emperor takes the throne!
You mean LEAVES the throne.
No, I mean Trump is the God Emperor, its a War Hammer reference.Quote:
Originally Posted by milwaukeeshaker