In that case, so is Stephen Halbrook, Randy Barnett, Richard Epstein, Antonin Scalia, Clarance Thomas, Eugene Volokh and virtually every single libertarian and conservative Constitutional scholar out there, because, examining the historical record, all of them agree that the Framers intended some regulation of firearms ownership to be permissible. Gawd, the level of constitutional and historical ignorance in this thread is appalling. Hell, the Framers intended for the States to have the right to ban firearms ownership outright because they intended the Bill of Rights to be applicable to the Federal government only. Do you all realize that?
The only reason the Court (any federal court) has even been able to address state infringement on firearms rights is because of the incorporation and the Bill of Rights. Thank heaven for that, but those are events which occurred nearly a 100 years after ratification of the original Constitution.
You still haven't answered my question.
Why was the Act of '34 set up as a tax?
