http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/460/575/
U.S. Supreme Court
Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Comm'r, 460 U.S. 575 (1983)
Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v.
Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue
No. 81-1839
Argued January 12, 1983
Decided March 29, 1983
460 U.S. 575
Syllabus
While exempting periodic publications from its general sales and use tax, Minnesota imposes a "use tax" on the cost of paper and ink products consumed in the production of such a publication, but exempts the first $100,000 worth of paper and ink consumed in any calendar year. Appellant newspaper publisher brought an action seeking a refund of the ink and paper use taxes it had paid during certain years, contending that the tax violates, inter alia, the guarantee of the freedom of the press in the First Amendment. The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the tax.
Held: The tax in question violates the First Amendment. Pp. 460 U. S. 579-593...
(b) But by creating the special use tax, which is without parallel in the State's tax scheme, Minnesota has singled out the press for special treatment. When a State so singles out the press, the political constraints that prevent a legislature from imposing crippling taxes of general applicability are weakened, and the threat of burdensome taxes becomes acute. That threat can operate as effectively as a censor to check critical comment by the press, thus undercutting the basic assumption of our political system that the press will often serve as an important restraint on government. Moreover, differential treatment, unless justified by some special characteristic of the press, suggests that the goal of the regulation is not unrelated to suppression of expression, and such goal is presumptively unconstitutional. Differential treatment of the press, then, places such a burden on the interests protected by the First Amendment that such treatment cannot be countenanced unless the State asserts a counterbalancing interest of compelling importance that it cannot achieve without differential taxation. Pp. 460 U. S. 581-585.
Since you (and others) have often admitted that you'd like "crippling taxes" on guns, the above decision would apply.
Of course, you can avoid the whole question by getting the Second Amendment repealed first.
= new reply since forum marked as read