If they’re publishing this dreck.
First off, they barely get started before printing their ignorance for all to see:
[Moynihan’s] solution: Increase the tax on bullets. He wouldn’t raise the tax on ammunition typically used for target shooting or hunting. But he proposed exorbitant taxes on hollow-tipped bullets designed to penetrate armor and cause devastating damage.
Now, this might be the late, unlamented Patrick Moynihan’s* error, but considering they point out he first proposed this nonsense nearly 20 years ago, they had plenty of time to fact check him.
Had they done so, they might have learned that hollow points are the opposite of armor piercing.
Now, setting that minor factual issue aside, I want to consider the idea of an exorbitant tax on ammunition.
Apparently, the NYT thinks that such a tax would be constitutional; after all, they’re not banned outright. Sure, $1,500 for a 20-round box of ammo sounds like a lot of money, but it’s a small price to pay to get around the constitution’s protection of fundamental rights.
Presumably, the NYT would likewise approve of a similar tax on abortions; perhaps $250,000 per abortion?**
After all, abortions wouldn’t be actually banned; you could still get one, provided you forked over the tax.
Fundamental rights cannot be de facto infringed in this way; the right to arms necessarily includes the right to use those arms. And that means pricing ammunition such that no one can afford it is right out.
The opinion piece goes on to hand-wring about NYC’s sale of spent brass to a Georgia ammunition reloader, but those complaints are even more incoherent than the first half.
*I note that the NYT refers to him as “a United States senator with one of the great political brains of 20th-century America.” I wonder if the author would have been so effusive if Moynihan hadn’t been a New York Democrat.
**I’m not going to get into my thoughts on abortion here (maybe some other time); it’s enough for my point here that SCOTUS has held it to be a fundamental right.