to the general public. Taxing is the prerogative of the government and has been upheld as constitutional by SCOTUS.

however, when the application of a tax interferes with another Constitutionally protected rights (like voting), the Supreme Court has ruled that such a tax is unconstitutional.

While it is possible that a future court might rule otherwise, it is not a stretch to see the applicability of Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections and the 24th Amendment to the CNMI's (or any CONUS location) attempt to levy a tax on an enumerated Constitutional right with the expressly stated purpose of limiting said right.

but I would take your assertion even further by stating that Heller decision also stated that the 2nd amendment is not an unlimited right. This meant that laws restricting concealed carry as well as other restrictions (like no firearms for felons, the mentally ill as well as no firearms in certain kinds of facilities) were, in fact, Constitutional.

The above mentioned excise tax, however, is not limited to Constitutionally permissible restrictions but rather the possession of all handguns regardless if carried or kept in the home. That would fall under the category of a Constitutional no-no.

Additionally, Heller stated that handguns are arms for the purposes of the 2nd amendment and the Heller decision certainly influenced the Radich v. Guerrero decision in the CNMI which found the ban on handguns in the North Marianas Islands was unconstitutional. While this recently passed law is an attempt to circumvent this decision, it will more than likely be struck down as “(a)n unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy" once the case finds itself in front of the Supreme Court (regardless of its ideological make up as a ruling that allows for the passage of a tax on a clearly enumerated right opens up a really big can of worms that could come back and bite us all on the ass maybe not now but 10, 20 30 years down the road).

However, Heller did specifically state that the 2ndA protects guns that are commonly owned for lawful purposes, specifically mentioning handguns as the exemplar. Less-misused, equally common guns (like Title 1 rifles and shotguns) would logically fall under that protection as well, though it was D.C.'s handgun ban that was the occasion for Heller's suit and the ruling.

Heller did uphold the existing restrictions on "dangerous and unusual" weapons, specifically naming tightly controlled Title 2 weapons as the exemplar of that category. So it is pretty clear that the court intended to preserve the de facto consensus that we have had for decades; non-automatics own-able by mentally competent adults with clean records, self-defense specifically protected, howitzers/explosives/machineguns more tightly controlled.

There is absolutely no way whatsoever that a ban (de facto or literal) on handgun ownership by mentally competent adults with clean records can be squared with the Heller ruling, since Heller (and McDonald) were specifically *about* handgun bans, and D.C.'s was struck down.

to be levied on the right to vote. This amendment would effectively set a precedent on preventing a tax on the exercise of any constitutional right, just as onerous expenses for parade permits and police overtime have been ruled unconstitutional restrictions on the right to assemble and speak.

IMO, the tax on full-auto weapons could be seen in the same light, but most folks (including myself) have not bothered to challenge it. At any rate, the present tax would hardly constitute an impediment to sale of these weapons. More likely is the lack of market for full-autos, given their price, and possibly the yielding up of other constitutional rights; notably, search & seizure.

hint, it's not tax dollars they desire most...

It demeans and degrades the basic and fundamental civil and human right of voting, and places the Right to Vote on par with our hobbies.

Come on, now. We all have hobbies.

But the Right to Vote is a basic and fundamental human and civil right, not just somebody's hobby.

You'll notice this group is located under justice and public safety which acknowledges the ideals of admins that the topic is NOT based on a hobby. For that matter, your posting here acknowledges your own concurrence.

Disingenuity thy nickname is control.

In fact, the right to keep and bear arms was considered such a fundamentally important right - along with for example the right to free speech and freedom from illegal searches and seizures - that the founding fathers included an amendment in the bill of rights that prohibits government infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.

...voting is not a basic and fundamental civil and human right.

I'm not talking about Scriptural passages here from one particular religion or from a constitution of one particular country, and the resulting Arguments From Authority.

I don't care if the "Founding Fathers" or any other religious and/or political authorities that folks may revere failed to support the Right to Vote in their constitution when they wrote it.

the RKBA is not the same as voting

professors aren't peace officer

lgbt people are not deadly weapons

am i forgetting something?

I'm simply pointing out that the right to keep and bear arms is one of the civil rights that was deemed so important by the Founding Fathers that it needed to be protected in the Bill of Rights, and has been for over 200 years.