Pricing the 2nd Amendment out of reach of minorities and the lower class


PDA






VARifleman
April 19, 2008, 06:18 PM
This is something I posed on another forum. Any comments would be appreciated. Any additions would be greatly appreciated.

--------

A few notes before we begin. Laws mentioned are either directly linked, or cited in text. I am not going to provide links to those cited in text, only links if I happen to have out a citation. All price numbers are calculated through the inflation calculator HERE (http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Calculators/Inflation_Rate_Calculator.asp), although the numbers are low, if you consider that we make more money for the value of the dollar now than we did in the years I am talking about. You can see how it compares to per capita income up to 2006 HERE (http://www.vtlmi.info/PCIvt.htm).

There have been a lot of changes in gun laws from 1900 to 2000, from NC's pistol purchase permit Jim Crow law in 1919, to the NFA of 34, the 68 GCA, 86 FOPA, 93 Brady, 94 AWB, and 98 NICS program.

NC Pistol Purchase Permit

It is one of the last remaining Jim Crow laws around, created in 1919 to ensnare minorities in 14-404 a(2),

LINK (http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-404.html)
Fully satisfied himself or herself by affidavits, oral evidence, or otherwise, as to the good moral character of the applicant.

At that time in the country "good moral character" was not considered a trait of minorities, and they were denied on this basis.

The second way they did it, is that the permit is 5 dollars. In 1919, 5 dollars is equal to 63.96 dollars. I'm not in a bad financial situation, but 64 bucks is pretty significant to me. Also, 64 bucks is more than a quarter of the price of one of my carry pistols. They instituted this law so that the blacks and the irish, etc. would be easy pickins for their klan friends.

1934 NFA

The NFA put a tax stamp and registration on several classes of weapons (Title II weapons). Those are: machine guns, short rifles (<16" barrel, or <26" OAL), short shotguns (<18" barrels, or <26" OAL), sound suppressors, and Any Other Weapons (AOWs). AOWs encompass a number of things, some of which are pistols with a second vertical grip, and guns that look like something other than a gun (pen guns that fire when they look like a pen, or a wallet holster with holes in it so you can fire the gun while it's in the holster, and smooth bore pistols). AOWs are the least taxed of all the classes, at 5 dollars. In the case of all NFA items, the price has never changed for any of the categories. 5 dollars in 1934 is 78.76 dollars today, not cheap.

Now lets get to the big 4 of the NFA. They all hold the same tax stamp, 200 dollars. 200 dollars then, is 3150 today. That's a hell of a lot of money unless you are really really rich. This goes back to the whole point of the thread, that regulation to increase cost is they real meat and potatoes of these laws, that way the politicians and their rich friends are protected and can force the lower classes to do their bidding.

1968 GCA

This bill did a lot of things. It set up the current FFL system. It started the prohibited persons list. It added another category of Title II weapons, Destructive Devices (DDs). It added import restrictions.

So what does all that mean? Well, it means that the price of being in the gun business went up with increased licensing cost. Add onto that the fact that you cannot buy a gun from a nondealer outside of your state anymore, and you can't buy a handgun from anyone outside of your state, and you have less competition on who you can legally buy from. Less competition on the open market will increase prices.

Import restrictions kept an arbitrary class of guns, defined only by the "sporting purposes" clause (Title 18 section 925 D3) which says that only guns that the AG determines are for sporting purposes with few exceptions may be imported. This gives total control to the AG, and can be reversed with the flick of his or her pen, and since 922 exists, instantly makes previously legal rifle configurations made out of foreign parts illegal put together, then try to convince a jury that you put together that rifle when it was legal to make (hahaha...not happening). Arbitrary decisions by an appointed official that can have such a significant impact on people's lively hood. The penalties for violating this or the NFA is 10 years, 250k dollars. This law also means that any items in the tax code under the NFA are not importable any longer, except for approved testing. (Post 68 dealer samples)

Now on to DDs, which were talked about briefly in the thread about what I found in the machine shop, since it was the muzzle brake off of a 20mm rifle. The definition includes a few things that I want to mention, as talking about all of them would make any discussion too broad, so I'll talk about the ones that affect me and my hobbies. Firearms with a caliber over one half inch, other than shotguns that the Secretary finds of sporting use Link to code (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00005845----000-.html). The other is rockets with propellant over 4 ounces. As I mentioned in the other thread, since these got added to the NFA, they cannot be imported any longer due to 18-925(d)(3), and this raised the price significantly on surplus and relic firearms from world war 2, the Korean war, and some that were coming out in the Vietnam war at the time. Since they couldn't be imported and they now had the 200 dollar tax on them, the prices of these guns rose dramatically. 200 dollars in 1968 is 1216 dollars in todays money. As I stated in the other thread, the rifle that the muzzle brake came off of, commands a 10k dollar price tag today. As for the rocket part, I like model, mid, and high power rocketry, although I haven't been able to get into high power rocketry as the requirements to get into it as well as the cost are prohibitive for me now, mainly due to that limit, and the ATF's control over low explosive rocket motors (Hazmat 1.4).

The 1986 Firearm Owner's Protection Act

Overall, this bill was good for gun owners, but the part I'm going to talk about added to the GCA in the form of 922(o). This stated that the machine gun registry was CLOSED as of May 19, 1986. This made the 1000 dollar M16s go to 15000 dollars. Once again, putting the price out of reach for the lower classes.

The 94 Assault Weapons Ban

This regulated rifles shotguns and pistols with a certain count of features as well as the magazine capacity of each. Detachable mags were limited to 10 rounds, shotguns had mag capacity as one of its limited features. What it didn't do is ban the possession or transfer of the defined items as long as they were made before the enactment of the law. This meant that banned items now jumped up in price, with preban mags commanding prices around 100 dollars. Once again, putting ownership farther out of reach for the lower classes.

If you enjoyed reading about "Pricing the 2nd Amendment out of reach of minorities and the lower class" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
El Tejon
April 19, 2008, 06:54 PM
What about the Son of Ham laws outlawing cheap pistols in the South?

Law requiring "Army pistols" only?

Heck, even the term "Saturday Night Special" has a racist origin.

John828
April 19, 2008, 06:55 PM
I'vkind of thought about this idea, but not nearly this deeply. I just thought about the costs incolved to get a CCW here in Arkansas and how that may be prohibitive to a single parent who is just getting by or anyone else who legally and morally has the right to defend themselves.

$75 to $150 for the course and $144 for the permit. That's a lot of groceries, or maybe a week or two of rent or a month's worth of utilities.

TexasRifleman
April 19, 2008, 08:43 PM
I've said similar for years, that gun laws are racist and classist.

It's why I can't understand why all the minority rights groups are not all over the thing.

Like El T says, "Saturday Night Special" evokes all kinds of racist feelings.

I like your write up documenting all the actions over the years. Good stuff.

RP88
April 19, 2008, 09:15 PM
I bet the reason alot of minorities arent jumping on gun rights is because gun crime have caused enough problems and evoked another wave of racism for them nowadays considering the gang/thug culture that has been going on since the 80's (not to mention how most of the crime is designated in the black and latino cultures). To them, guns are probably an ugly part of the ugly side of their communities.

rocinante
April 19, 2008, 09:38 PM
I read an interesting article that said many minorities are not interested in gun rights because it increases the probability of their family and friends involved in crime getting killed.

It always puzzled me too especially since the 14th amendment sought to have them armed for self defense. I live in a calm neighborhood and like the comfort of being armed but if I lived in a violent neighborhood I definitely would want self protection.

MAKster
April 19, 2008, 10:16 PM
I don't buy the argument that the price of guns is a form of discrimination against poor people. Guns are actually inexpensive compared to other goods. You can buy a high quality pump action shotgun for $250 or a pistol for $400. These will last a lifetime. A hundred years ago a quality gun would cost 3 or 4 months salary for an average person. People today spend far more on rent, gasoline, car repairs, or the monthly cable TV bill. Just because a regulation increases the price of something doesn't mean it's discriminatory. Everything costs money and if your income is limited you have to make choices about what is important to you and save money by not wasting it on things you really don't need.

Samuel Adams
April 19, 2008, 11:02 PM
Fully satisfied himself or herself by affidavits, oral evidence, or otherwise, as to the good moral character of the applicant.
This sounds like Georgia's "Public Gathering" clause.

VARifleman
April 19, 2008, 11:27 PM
I don't buy the argument that the price of guns is a form of discrimination against poor people. Guns are actually inexpensive compared to other goods. You can buy a high quality pump action shotgun for $250 or a pistol for $400. These will last a lifetime. A hundred years ago a quality gun would cost 3 or 4 months salary for an average person. People today spend far more on rent, gasoline, car repairs, or the monthly cable TV bill. Just because a regulation increases the price of something doesn't mean it's discriminatory. Everything costs money and if your income is limited you have to make choices about what is important to you and save money by not wasting it on things you really don't need.
They banned the importation of some cheaper pistols which are 100 bucks or less. That's quite a bit more affordable to a lot of people than 400 bucks. Also, we're talking about a progression starting from more "evil" guns to guns that aren't much different, or are those 250-400 dollar guns you talk about. Also, in the past hundred years, yearly per capita income has increased faster than the cpi, so those taxes, while not really a big monetary deal now, were huge then. Also, I may be able to afford a decent semi-auto, but I can't afford a full auto because of the regulation, even though they really aren't any more complex, sometimes much less.

John828
April 20, 2008, 08:39 AM
I was impressed by two people in my CCW class. Both were minorities and both were seeking to defend themselves against undesirable aspects of their neighborhoods.

One was a teacher at an inner city elementary school and the stories she told were a sad commentary on the state of public schools.

MAKster: I don't buy the argument that the price of guns is a form of discrimination against poor people.

It may not be a blatant form of discrimination, but, inherently, the cost is potentially probitive. I can see charging $25 to $30 for the background check, $5 to fingerprint, $10 to $15 for a card, and mayber a $25 "administration" fee. What's that? $65 or $75.

RP88: I bet the reason alot of minorities arent jumping on gun rights is because...

Nope, I bet it is because the "leaders" of minority groups are gun grabbing activists.

JCMAG
April 20, 2008, 10:02 AM
There was a sheep that wanted to leave its pen. Unlike the other sheep, all it did was stare outside of the fence. The other sheep sometimes thought about getting out, but seldom attempted, so they admired the freedom-seeking sheep, hoping he would get them out someday. One day, the freedom-seeking sheep charged the fence, wanting to batter it down. The sheep's head got stuck and from then on it couldn't see anything behind it, but only outside of the fence. The other sheep thought he was a fool, only being able to see his backside.

That's a little parable. The point is, if you find yourself stuck in a bad situation, such as poverty, and find yourself "fenced in" by prejudices old and recurrent, you might see firearms as something more than for defense.

If someone uses violence to try and ascend their current state, they often end up the sheep with its head stuck in the fence, ie., arrested, outlawed, dead, or reviled by their neighbors for killing other community members.

From then on, the community only sees that dominating characteristic, the violence, as the sheep only saw the freedom-seeking sheep's backside from then on out. Guns do not become defensive things, they become a means of destruction.

This is, of course, absurd. But it is a perception and perceptions seldom reflect reality (especially when you ask the question: "whose reality?").

I agree that gun control is conducive to disarming the lower-classes. Unfortunately, the lower-classes are disproportionately composed of some races and ethnicities than others. The argument can be made that there is a historical link between these two things, prohibitive cost and the non-white poor, but I find it to be somewhat irrelevant: The link exists now and is relevant now.

Now if only we can get the majority- and minority-working class of all races to realize this, we might be able to do something about it....

mek42
April 20, 2008, 10:32 AM
I don't buy the argument that the price of guns is a form of discrimination against poor people. Guns are actually inexpensive compared to other goods. You can buy a high quality pump action shotgun for $250 or a pistol for $400. These will last a lifetime. A hundred years ago a quality gun would cost 3 or 4 months salary for an average person. People today spend far more on rent, gasoline, car repairs, or the monthly cable TV bill. Just because a regulation increases the price of something doesn't mean it's discriminatory. Everything costs money and if your income is limited you have to make choices about what is important to you and save money by not wasting it on things you really don't need.

I don't think that the OP was talking about the direct cost of hardware, per se, but rather the cost of regulatory fees (arguably illegal in the first place) and the indirect supply / demand cost inflation of certain ban regulations.

eflatminor
April 20, 2008, 10:46 AM
What has always puzzled me is the "leaders" of the poor communities seem to be the most vehement gun grabbers when the folks they're supposed to be representing are the most vulnerable to acts of violence. Why in the world would you want to disarm those that need protection from violence the most? Now, I don't expect Jessie Jackson to understand the real reason for the second ammendment, but I don't get why he doesn't trust his followers whom he claims are fine upstanding citizens.

yokel
April 20, 2008, 10:49 AM
We can reasonably conclude that people can behave in harmful ways even when they ought to know better. We never seem to outgrow the ability to do something foolish.

People want police officers to patrol enough to be a visible presence and deterrent to criminals, respond to their calls promptly, keep order in their neighborhood, solve local traffic problems, and arrest all criminals. The police are also called on to solve many social problems because the police will respond nights and weekends when other agencies are closed. These social problems include the mentally ill, the homeless, and the alcohol and drug addicted. There are unending demands on police officer time and never enough officers to do everything people would like.

Relying solely on traditional reactive policing (dealing with the problem after it happens) or non-violent "peace walks" and vigils to protest neighborhood gang violence is nave at best and offends common sense.

What is needed: Armed citizens who get some of the training that police routinely receive to defuse volatile situations have to start patrols on the mean streets.

TexasRifleman
April 20, 2008, 11:28 AM
Just because a regulation increases the price of something doesn't mean it's discriminatory.

When the government expressly forbids the production of televisions that use low cost manufacturing process come back and maybe your argument will make sense.

The so called "Saturday Night Special" laws do just that.

hankdatank1362
April 20, 2008, 11:43 AM
Isn't it illegal (and unconstitutional, IIRC) for Congress to effectively prohibit something by excessive taxation?

Baba Louie
April 20, 2008, 12:42 PM
Isn't it illegal (and unconstitutional, IIRC) for Congress to effectively prohibit something by excessive taxation?Not if that which is "taxed" affects 'Interstate Commerce' (wink wink nudge nudge :scrutiny:) As our forefathers knew, some politicians will do anything in their power to keep their power, even when they draft a set of rules for the limitation of governmental power.

Witness a $200 tax on a $3 piece of pipe w/ internal baffles... still legal in the eyes of the courts.

HonorsDaddy
April 20, 2008, 12:50 PM
Well yeah, but since when did the fact that something was illegal prevent Congress from doing it?

The Lone Haranguer
April 20, 2008, 01:11 PM
There is little or nothing to stop an anti-gun state or other jurisdiction from requiring permits to purchase and then imposing impossibly high fees on them, added burdensome "excise taxes" on firearms or ammunition, etc., effectively denying people firearms ownership.

Art Eatman
April 20, 2008, 01:26 PM
Back in the 1970s, there was discussion in Congress about banning "Saturday Night Specials", the cheap stuff.

The congressional Black Caucus rose up, protesting that this would disarm the poor, and since most of the poor were black--the idea was racist. Teddy Kennedy, et al, were not pleased.

Fast forward to today and a 180-degree reversal in attitude on the part of the Caucus and the NAACP, although the facts remain the same...

Art

brighamr
April 20, 2008, 01:36 PM
VARifleman - excellent write up. One other thing you may want to consider adding is all the new zoning requirements, insurance costs and federal permits required for selling the different types of firearms. All of this cost makes becoming a firearms dealer more difficult, which in result makes it harder and more expensive for the average citizen to purchase a gun. There was a time I had to drive 120 miles to buy a gun (round trip), and due to the waiting period I had to make the drive twice. A lot of people who don't have a lot of extra money couldn't have done that..... with the extra restrictions and fees to become a dealer, dealers are becoming more scarce in places like CA and NY, which in return forces people to make the drive, which adds gas money to any gun purchase. Just a thought.

thanks for sharing your post. If you don't mind, I'd like to send it to a few of my co-workers.

Kharn
April 20, 2008, 02:21 PM
I believe at least one state (NC?) had a law saying that a pistol's frame had to survive to XXX degrees, in order to prevent the sale of pot-metal pistols such as Ravens and Jennings. They had to change the law when the police wanted to upgrade to Glocks, which also melted below the specified temperature.

Kharn

TEDDY
April 20, 2008, 02:45 PM
Just a history:many gun companies existed to supply the 'poor'Iver Johnson H&R ,Thames,and many others."bluebird#2,redhead #1,meriden arms.50cents to $11.and the blacks did not have as high a crime rate as now.most were married.and teen girls did not get pregnant.thank our liberal activists and the lack of moral responability.I had and used all of the above names.:uhoh::rolleyes::D:D

suemarkp
April 20, 2008, 05:35 PM
I agree with the cost argument. And you can add other things like mandatory trigger locks, possession/purchase license fees (like FOID cards or local registration that costs money), transfer fees (and laws required F2F sales to go through a dealer), similar regulatory rules on dealers (safe storage vaults, hazmat storage of smokeless and black powder), lawsuits on dealers/manufacturers, and I'm sure there are many more.

Each little cost increase puts guns further out of reach from some people. The basic cost of gun hardware is reather reasonable compared to the past (although I see list prices popping upfast again).

And I think we'll see it next on ammo (serialized bullets and brass, lead reclamation hazmat fees).

The Tourist
April 20, 2008, 05:46 PM
Each little cost increase puts guns further out of reach from some people.

I agree with that assessment. But just for a breath of fresh air, how about asking the guys who complain to invest more in the item or work harder?

I have been around hobbyist forums for enough time now to recognize old thread ideas. One of them reads something like, "I need a new gun/boat/chinchilla/girl friend, and I don't want to pay more than $127.50, tax included."

The problem is not only do I not know the info, but in good conscience I wouldn't recommend any of the four choices for that price.

"Well, Tourist, you have spent a lifetime working and saving. You have lots of stuff."

Yes I do, none of them with coupons or stipends from "The State."

In the reverse, I'm not going to adjust my prices down because someone cannot pay me for what I'm worth. You want a sharp jackknife, well, you'd better scrape together somewhere between 60 and 150 bucks. I do pro bono work, as do all professionals. But your circumstances are not my fault. I invested time and money to get to this level--so should you.

TexasRifleman
April 20, 2008, 08:58 PM
I invested time and money to get to this level--so should you.

That's not what this is about in the slightest.

This is about a government that keeps the prices for a specific type of product at an artificially high level to keep certain groups from being able to afford them.

What would you say if tomorrow the government said that milk would cost a minimum of $50 a gallon and no milk company could sell their milk for less and placed all kinds of restrictions on milk makers so that they only way they could meet these restrictions would mean that the price was over $50 a gallon?

Would you call that discrimination or would you simply say that those that can't afford $50 milk should just do without?

That is almost word for word what some of these so called "saturday night special" laws did. They took a legally made and sold product and forced the manufacturer to raise prices to a point where a target group could no longer afford them.

This is not a matter of someone needing to work harder.

The Tourist
April 20, 2008, 09:58 PM
This is about a government that keeps the prices for a specific type of product at an artificially high level

There will always be villians, there will always be those who use their power and prestige to manipulate prices and availability. Have you purchased gasoline this week?

My point is that your financial health should be protected as you would your physical health. Remeber the adage about death and taxes.

But consider this, I'm not really afraid of Hillbama. I don't have toilet fixtures made out of solid gold, but I could withstand quite a shake-up. Old news, actually. I lived through Jimmy Carter and even found a better job.

My point is that whining about freedoms being manipulated over pricing is old and very repititious. Ever hear of a "poll tax"? If you have a friend who is black, ask his grandfather. In a very real sense, it was mob 'protection money' at a government level.

Get a job. Go to the gym. Choose a good 100% blue agave beverage once in a while for a reward. There will be another cadre' of villians along soon enough.

VARifleman
April 21, 2008, 03:33 AM
My point is that whining about freedoms being manipulated over pricing is old and very repititious. Ever hear of a "poll tax"? If you have a friend who is black, ask his grandfather. In a very real sense, it was mob 'protection money' at a government level.

What I posted said that they are doing the same with guns as they did with poll taxes. They had those so that blacks couldn't afford to vote. They had literacy tests so blacks could pass and vote. These are the issues that I am talking about and comparing it to.

TexasRifleman
April 21, 2008, 08:17 AM
Ever hear of a "poll tax"? If you have a friend who is black, ask his grandfather. In a very real sense, it was mob 'protection money' at a government level.

Every time you post you make our point.

The poll taxes were the same as what we're talking about here, an artificial means to keep personal power out of the hands of a specific group.

You keep wanting to make it about economics and work ethic and it's just not.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
April 21, 2008, 09:15 AM
Good thread, OP - thank you! Very true.

Phil DeGraves
April 21, 2008, 11:43 AM
"Now, I don't expect Jessie Jackson to understand the real reason for the second ammendment, but I don't get why he doesn't trust his followers whom he claims are fine upstanding citizens."

Because if they buy firearms, then they are demonstrating a potential self-reliance. If they are self-reliant, then what do they need him for? Just like all anti gunners, he realizes that his control over people is adversely affected by people who are willing to take responsibility for their own lives.

The Tourist
April 21, 2008, 12:14 PM
You keep wanting to make it about economics and work ethic and it's just not.

Go rent the movie "Barbarians at the Gate." It is always about econonmics and the work ethic. It always has been.

Look at your own history and The Framers. "No taxation without representation." The Boston Tea Party. All of The Sedition Acts.

All of these actions connected to freedom amid securing wealth and a carbon copy page out of every socilist's handbook. If you cannot kill your enemy, then tax away his freedoms.

How do you think Hillbama wants to control power? Simply ask us to surrender it, or set up so much government imbibing so much money that we cannot help but turn to the central government.

And they're not going to ask for charitable contributions. They're going to act like Boss Tweed at Tammany Hall, or The Stamp Act or some phoney baloney witch doctor selling indulgences.

The dust bin of history is loaded with "conquerors" who shackle an entire populace and never fire a shot. Learn to know the signs, and finding references is all too easy.

Art Eatman
April 21, 2008, 12:35 PM
The Tourist: Your interest is in a rather specialized and limited group, not the "Joe Sixpack" ordinary person with no real interest in firearms beyond some possible need in an unlikely event. A fair percentage of those are poor.

So just look at today's world of rising costs of food and transportation and think of those on a very-slim budget.

Your priority, my priority, might readily be for saving toward that better-quality go-bang. Many can't afford to do that.

Bad when governmental policies militate against those folks.

The Tourist
April 21, 2008, 01:16 PM
"Joe Sixpack" ordinary person

I understand. But if our friend Joe works in a 'company town' or in 'the rust belt,' he is certainly knowledeable about the outcome.

This fact I know personally. I tried to save a printing company once that laid off 75 employees three weeks before Christmas.

This is not a new idea--that being the connection of labor to rulers using their poverty. When I was five years old, a song came out, Tennessee Ernie Ford's Sixteen Tons, with lyrics germane to the core of this debate.

(Briefly, the song deals with coal miners trapped in their jobs because of the debts they ran up buying food from "the company store.")

You mean you never saw "Old Man Potter"?

HonorsDaddy
April 21, 2008, 01:18 PM
What an amazingly condescending attitude. Its nice to see elitism is still alive and well in the firearms community.

Thank you sir, for contributing to the problem.

This isn't about a desire to engage in a hobby my friend. It is about the basic desire to obtain a tool which allows you to exercise your rights effectively. For some people, the cost of even a Jennings or Raven Arms pistol is substantial. Apparently to you, this means they do not deserve to be able to defend their lives.

The Tourist
April 21, 2008, 01:31 PM
What an amazingly condescending attitude

That's not my point. I just have seen the train coming far too many times. We all know the old canard, "Those who refuse to study history..."

But I also saw another thing. As a small boy my Dad and I used to pass a company, and there always seemed to be one distinct car in the parking lot.

I made the comment, "Boy, that janitor has lousy hours." My Dad corrected me.

"Oh no, son, that's the owner's car. He's the first one there and the last one to leave."

In the midst of this debate, very few will deny the fact that this condition exists in America. We know the economy is fueled on money, we watch the company we work for and their direction--we even make comments on the charities our employers support if they are contrary to our values.

And after a lifetime of watching people go to work, of seeing election after election, of enduring plant closings and unemplyment, there are still people who complain about the rules of the game.

Just what exactly do you think Hillbama is going to do if elected?

Yikes, he/they/she are going to whittle away at enumerated rights by any means necessary. Taxes will be going up while our military is stripped to the bone. You can have all of the guns in your county, and they won't do you a whit of good if you cannot afford ammo, reloading supplies and gasoline to get to the range.

You know it, I know it.

I'm not an elitist for citing history. Heck, my Father wasn't even born during the Boss Tweed era. However the ideals and strategies of this type of rule are out there and they are age old.

VARifleman
April 21, 2008, 02:29 PM
Yikes, he/they/she are going to whittle away at enumerated rights by any means necessary. Taxes will be going up while our military is stripped to the bone. You can have all of the guns in your county, and they won't do you a whit of good if you cannot afford ammo, reloading supplies and gasoline to get to the range.
The taxes on guns and ammo is exactly what we're talking about. They don't want to go for a total ban because they face too much resistance, but they are trying to get away with it through taxation, price fixing, and license fees.

dvcrsn
April 21, 2008, 03:15 PM
The ********** mandated "safety testing" for firearms had the effect of increasing the price of handguns:fire::banghead::cuss: because of two factors: first, gun stores and pawnshops could no longer add quality used handguns to their inventory if the guns weren't on the list (and since the makers would not submit guns that they were no longer making, there went the Ruger Security Six line, series 70 1911's, older models of Smith semiautos,etc those models became harder to find); and many companies just wrote off ********** (like Keltec and STI). What is bad is the POS guns that the law was supposedly addressing (Raven,Davis, Lorcin) usually passed the test. Correct me if I am wrong, but the last time I checked, a $200 Security or Service Six in 357 mag will protect its owner as well as any revolver out there, and compare reasonably well to a semiauto.

The Tourist
April 21, 2008, 04:56 PM
The taxes on guns and ammo is exactly what we're talking about. They don't want to go for a total ban because they face too much resistance, but they are trying to get away with it through taxation, price fixing, and license fees.

Unless the purpose of the thread was simply to complain, let me ask directly, what is it exactly that you want us to do?

TexasRifleman
April 21, 2008, 06:16 PM
Unless the purpose of the thread was simply to complain, let me ask directly, what is it exactly that you want us to do?

Did you read the first post?

This isn't Activism. VARifleman came to a conclusion through his own logic and he asked if anyone else had ever come to the same thoughts.

Certainly many of us have but he didn't know that when he posted, now he does.

He asked for thoughts on what he wrote and how he worded his ideas.

I think he did a pretty concise job of it.

The Tourist
April 21, 2008, 06:24 PM
Could you cut and paste the part you mean. I don't see a conrete replacement or substitute plan, other than "any tax is bad."

Flat tax? Sales tax? Government rebate?

LAR-15
April 21, 2008, 09:14 PM
I believe at least one state (NC?) had a law saying that a pistol's frame had to survive to XXX degrees, in order to prevent the sale of pot-metal pistols such as Ravens and Jennings. They had to change the law when the police wanted to upgrade to Glocks, which also melted below the specified temperature.

Kharn

It was South Carolina

ctdonath
April 22, 2008, 04:05 PM
That's not my point.
It's the point of several here.

Just because you've seen the train come far too many times doesn't mean it's not coming and we shouldn't be ready for it.

We're not really sure what your point is.
There has always been some form of "poll tax"? Yeah, and some here are noticing it for the first time.
People should just suck it up and take it? Practically, yeah, insofar as that's what they have to do to do what they have to do (I shelled out >$400 for NFA taxes etc. for my HD longarm - that's enough for a good used Glock alone) ... but that doesn't mean they should sit there, take it, and like it.

The point of the thread is to draw attention to the problem for those who haven't, or sorta, started noticing the problem. Your "suck it up" attitude is unhelpful.

The Tourist
April 22, 2008, 05:58 PM
We're not really sure what your point is.

It's very simple. I've seen threads like this before.

Obviously, firearms are expensive. They always have been. Elmer Keith wrote about the costs of firearms in his book called "Six Guns." Much of the book was compiled in the 1920's. (There even a picture of his wife holding a wild cat that she shot--while she was in a dress.)

After that, the next part of the argument proffers the idea that unscrupulous politicians control guns with taxes. The debaters complain that these taxes keep them from enjoying all of the nicer firearms. They bemoan their station in life.

Next, in the holy name of The Framers, they demand "their rights" and some type of plan to right this tragic wrong. Usually it's some type of give away program that is tantamount to "welfare for guns."

I asked a guy one time if I, personally, would qualify. He told me, no, I had enough money. I gushed, and told him, "Well, why didn't you say so! I know what that is! It's communism!"

From each according to his means, to each according to his needs.

Oh woe is me. Clearly, the prices of guns, ammunition and reloading supplies is up and going further. It might level, you might even get a coupon for being a good customer. But prices rise, and they almost never come down. (Gas will come down just in time for the election.)

The only way to beat this game is to vote and make sure you're on time for work.

Edit: Since this thread was started, there was enough time to sort through your closets, find stuff you no longer want, organize a garage sale and actually get the money for the gun you want. While you were waiting between customers, you could have written a letter to your congressman.

Mall Ninja
April 22, 2008, 06:36 PM
Don't know whether this has been mentioned but during the Clinton Admin, HUD tried to prohibit anyone living in public housing from owning a firearm. Of course, just as DC's gun ban does, this merely disarmed all the chickens in the henhouse, allowing the foxes to prey with impunity.

The Tourist
April 22, 2008, 11:25 PM
HUD tried to prohibit anyone

Thank you for the example.

But that's my point, in a left-handed sort of way. We can all cite examples of policies, taxes, and codes which we feel limit our enumerated rights under 2A. Obviously, I've made my opinion known.

However, I'll ask again, what's your plan?

Repeal all taxes at the state, county and federal level for all firearm, ammunition and reloading supplies as being a Constituional infringement?

Be my guest, and good luck. This would probably take a Supreme Court decision after years of working the case through the courts.

Only tax the rich? Well, okay, but then you have to wear a T-shirt that says, "My butt was parked on a couch when The Tourist paid for my guns."

Subsidize the purchase with a rebate or a coupon? Well, it's much the same as my welfare comment above, but we do offer incentives in the form of deductions on our IRS taxes. If you feel you have been impugned, list the deduction and let the tax boys make a decision.

However, someone has to cover your short fall. Either the better-off people pay your share, or the gun manufacturer pays, or some other program gets less revenue next year or The President sells his golf clubs. Trust me, the golf clubs are safe.

So if you're going to complain and ask for change, then you'd better have a plan. You're essentially asking the government to give up tens of millions of dollars in taxing commerce to be nice guys. And frankly, while I will support your right to the RKBA, I'm not going to buy you a gun.

So, what's your plan?

Funderb
April 22, 2008, 11:29 PM
yeah, I agree. guns and ammo is too expensive. even the magazine.

Lew
April 22, 2008, 11:54 PM
Tourist, are you just trolling or what? Seriously.

VARifleman
April 23, 2008, 01:36 AM
However, I'll ask again, what's your plan?
That's already been addressed by TexasRifleman. This is not the activism forum, and if I was posting a plan of action, I'd post it there. HOWEVER...the steps before doing that are important. You have to IDENTIFY the problem. That is what this thread is about. IDENTIFYING laws that are meant to tax and restrict guns from ownership of the lower classes, especially those originally designed to target minorities. You cannot go from 0-100 miles an hour without first going 1 mph, 2 mph...55mph (oh wait...I can't drive 55)...68 mph etc.

The Tourist
April 23, 2008, 02:38 AM
Tourist, are you just trolling or what? Seriously.

No, I'm just disappointed.

We seem to revere our heroes in history, but when it comes to our turn for care taking of the 2A, there's a real lack of anything substantive.

If we are in fact being taxed or manipulated by a strong central government, it doesn't appear that anyone even knows or proffers a solution, much less cares about implementing one.

And I get into trouble for asking a question.

ksnecktieman
April 23, 2008, 11:38 PM
Tourist? do you think it would be acceptable for the federal government to tax a printing press more than a sewing machine? I think that would be an infringement on free speech rights under the first amendment.
Do you think the federal government taxing a pistol more than a drill press would be acceptable? I think that would be an infringement on second amendment rights.

Prohibitive? Maybe, maybe not, but they will increase until they are.

jrfoxx
April 24, 2008, 05:39 AM
However, I'll ask again, what's your plan?

Repeal all taxes at the state, county and federal level for all firearm, ammunition and reloading supplies as being a Constituional infringement?

Be my guest, and good luck. This would probably take a Supreme Court decision after years of working the case through the courts.

Only tax the rich? Well, okay, but then you have to wear a T-shirt that says, "My butt was parked on a couch when The Tourist paid for my guns."

Subsidize the purchase with a rebate or a coupon?

I'm not seeing where anyone has suggested there should be NO tax on guns or ammo, or that there should be free ones for the poor, or coupons/rebates for the poor. The impression I'm geting, and I'd agree, is that guns and ammo are taxed at a much higher rate than say an apple, rice, shoes, a shirt, etc. The point is, EXCESSIVE tax being used to control/descriminate, not the fact ANY tax exists. why is it "communist", or "welfare", or "entitlement" to simply say that guns and ammo taxes should be a REASONABLE rate/percent, like with other products, as opposed to the EXCESSIVE rate/percent they are now? No freebies, no coupons, no giveaways, no handouts, no stealing from the rich to give to the poor, just a reasonable, fair, equal tax. if food,clothes, etc are taxed at say 5% (just a nubmber as an example), then guns should be taxed at 5%, not 20%, and then $200 in NFA tax, $200 in licenses fees (effectively a tax), etc. Thats all thats being said. I think you are taking it to an extreme WAY beyond what anyone has suggested.

Nobody wants to add a 10% federal tax to your check to buy guns for "poor" people.Nobody want to make you pay full price, but people under $10,000 a year get guns at 1/2 price, and no one wants to take guns from you "rich" folk to redistribute them to the poor. Dont worry. We are not trying to take your guns or your money to give it to "dirty poor people" (<--joking). :p:neener:
We just think YOU, as well as poor people, shouldnt be forced by the govt to be paying EXCESSIVE, unfair, taxes on guns, aammo, permits, etc.It benefits YOU, as well as the poor. See? win-win for everybody but racistes, elitists, and the govt, and I say screw them, they have MORE than enough tax money if they quit wasting it on all the useless crap like fancy cars, desks, perks, etc for themselves.

VARifleman
April 24, 2008, 01:21 PM
No, I'm just disappointed.

We seem to revere our heroes in history, but when it comes to our turn for care taking of the 2A, there's a real lack of anything substantive.

If we are in fact being taxed or manipulated by a strong central government, it doesn't appear that anyone even knows or proffers a solution, much less cares about implementing one.

And I get into trouble for asking a question.

No, look back again at the point of this question. We CANNOT offer a SOLUTION if the problem is NOT KNOWN. What we CAN DO, is find out WHAT the problem is. Only AFTER the problem is KNOWN can a solution be offered. You're putting the cart before the horse, and backtracking previous statements that you made which basically state that there is no problem without showing evidence that my analysis is wrong.

The Tourist
April 24, 2008, 01:37 PM
no problem without showing evidence that my analysis is wrong

Well, perhaps it is my fault in the perception of the issue.

The OP states/implies that there might be tax issues curtailing the free exercise of 2A. To that, we have discussed tax issues on voting, food and other needs of the populace.

My position of this debate is to state flatly that there is no issue. None. If there was a uniform, country-wide policy of setting up tax barriers for the purpose to disenfranchise any group or section of the financial strata, then smarter minds than ours would be screaming. Leading the pack would be the NRA, and fighting the issue would be some leftist organization implying that guns wwere now kept from "the leading factors of crime."

For the record, I don't believe in The Skull and Bones, The Trilateral Commision, black helicopters, tin foil hats, Men in Black, or alien implants. For all of the screaming about The Patriot Act, the biggest infringement I have ever heard documented was studying the receipts of individuals shopping at Borders Book Store.

What I do believe in is the constant complaining about the government as a "catch all" for our woes. If we can't afford that new car it's because George won't get us out of Iraq thereby driving up pricing.

If you are right and there is a "cart before the horse" issue, then you're going to have to show me that there is an issue, at all.

Right now, all I see is a debate in a hobbyist forum. And to that debate, I simply disagree.

VARifleman
April 24, 2008, 07:50 PM
Imposing a law that makes the price of certain firearms jump by 15X is not a regulatory barrier to keep the lower and middle classes from being able to afford those firearms?

Imposing a law that makes a tax equal to 5 months average salary on an item is not an attempt to make make the item unattainable by the lower class?

Having a moral character requirement on a permit that was used and abused to deny permits to blacks is not a racist law?

Having trade regulations so that the firearms could only be sold through a store, and the license for that store cost quite a bit of money at the time, and thus increases the price of firearms significantly, is not an attempt to make them harder to obtain by the lower classes?

Am I getting that right Tourist? Also, I think it's naive to think that the "smarter" minds would be after this. The NRA has to worry about stopping the UN gun ban movement, as well as to carefully choose their words, lest they appear nuts.

John828
April 24, 2008, 08:53 PM
If there was a uniform, country-wide policy of setting up tax barriers for the purpose to disenfranchise any group or section of the financial strata, then smarter minds than ours would be screaming.

Whether or not taxes, administration fees and regulatory fees were purposefully intended to keep some people from exercising their right to bear arms, they do. Personally, I do not believe they were created intentionally for that reason, but they effectively create that situation.

If you enjoyed reading about "Pricing the 2nd Amendment out of reach of minorities and the lower class" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!