Proposals to tax guns and ammunition


PDA






Midwest
April 8, 2013, 02:30 PM
Proposals to tax guns and ammunition

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/07/gun-taxes-owners-second-amendment/2049363/

Interesting article on how certain areas of the country are considering taxes on Firearms and ammo. Some of us might have heard Cook County IL and California proposing to tax guns or ammo.

It seems like there are other areas considering the proposals as well. We should do what we can to not only oppose these proposals but we should alert others to what is being proposed in these other states. There is even an proposal for a Federal tax in addition to already 11% excise tax.

"Legislation introduced in Congress would add a 10% tax to handgun purchases to pay for gun buybacks and other programs. Bills creating new taxes are pending in state legislatures in New Jersey and Washington state."

I paraphrased and reworded some of the proposals. Perhaps others could chime in with information on what is proposed in their states and maybe we can shed a little more light on all of this.


Federal 10% tax on handguns
California 5 cent tax on every bullet
Cook County IL $25 tax and ammo
Massachusetts 25% tax on ammo and firearms
Maryland 50% tax on ammunition and $25 for handgun license
Nevada $25 on gun sales and 2 cents tax on each bullet
NJ and Washington state considering taxes

If you enjoyed reading about "Proposals to tax guns and ammunition" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Agsalaska
April 8, 2013, 11:28 PM
OK. So I have a couple of questions/comments.

Are we also charging a tax on new car sales to cover all of the car wreck injuries treated every day at local hospitals?

The Mass rep says that 'We tax cigarettes, we tax alcohol, we tax other things that have a negative effect on society.' -Negative says who? you? You also tax gas consumption, tourists in hotels, going to the movies, my own property, parking at the airport, a % of every purchase i make. Your going to come after our money in a million different ways. Your doing it because it is a convenient opportunity. Period.

heidisoon
May 6, 2013, 02:31 AM
Life really does mimic art sometimes. For instance, more than a decade ago, comic Chris Rock suggested in a stand-up routine that if bullets were made too expensive, there would be much fewer shootings. Cook County, Illinois, seems to agree, which is why that region, which Chicago occupies, is proposing a bullet tax (http://personalmoneynetwork.com/moneyblog/2012/10/18/bullet-tax/) that would help defray the costs of crime.

Olevern
May 6, 2013, 02:48 AM
I suggest a tax on exercising your first amendment rights as well, then. Talking heads; pay up!

Texan Scott
May 6, 2013, 03:21 AM
A tax on gun purchases to pay for buybacks... so if I buy a $500 gun, and pay a 10% tax... when I turn it back in for a $50 gift card, they're buying my gun "back" from me ... with my own money?!?

... and the horse they rode in on!

Another fine day to be a Texan.

Gallstones
May 6, 2013, 03:39 AM
That would be like a poll tax on a Right. Unacceptable.

TheSaint
May 6, 2013, 03:57 AM
That would be like a poll tax on a Right. Unacceptable.
Bingo. It is so galling it defines words.

sonick808
May 6, 2013, 04:30 AM
*** nevada ?

Midwest
May 6, 2013, 05:39 AM
*** nevada ?
" A committee heard testimony last week on a Nevada bill that would create a $25 tax for gun sales and a 2-cent tax on each round of ammunition. Funds would benefit victims' services and mental health programs."

Ash
May 6, 2013, 06:19 AM
The poll tax is a superb example in this instance as it was a tax designed to deny or punish rights. A firearms tax is in that same league, but then so are cigarette taxes. The difference in the former is it is an established individual right of citizens to keep and bear arms whereas the latter is not spelled out directly in the constitution at all. Poll taxes are unconstitutional, and bullet taxes over and above sales taxes would be, too I would think.

Pointshoot
May 6, 2013, 06:44 AM
"The power to tax is the power to destroy".

beatledog7
May 6, 2013, 06:56 AM
Using the tax code to influence behavior has been around for a very long time. It's practiced broadly, from high taxes on alcoholic beverages and tobacco products (so-called sin taxes) to tax credits for buying energy-efficient appliances or hybrid cars. Even the mortgage deduction is a targeted mechanism designed to encourage Americans to bury themselves in a mortgage, thereby bolstering the bottom lines of lenders.

Levying high taxes on firearms and related items is just another way for government to influence behavior through taxation. And don't be fooled into believing the funds raised through these taxes would benefit victims' or mental health services. Remember, government said Social Security would go into a lockbox where it would earn interest and be given back to us when we retire. It was a hoodwink then; it's a hoodwink now.

PRM
May 6, 2013, 07:20 AM
lizawinston: 1st day on the forum, 1st post on the forum, obviously from the anti-gun - anti 2nd Amendment side. This should be interesting.

Ever consider that guns are not the problem. Gun bans like prohibition will never work, criminals don't follow the law. If you don't want a gun, that's your right, the Constitution guarantees my right to own one. I know the liberals hate this document, but, that little paper is what makes us uniquely American. There are plenty of places that have already banned guns if that makes you feel safer. The UK is even wanting to ban "pointy kitchen knives" now. Why not just move to South Chicago, the gun laws are working so well there . Taxes on firearms and bullets infringe most on the poor. Why not be upfront and just say in the liberal progressive world, only the rich and privileged should have rights. Do you really think Bloomberg, Obama, or any of the big celebrities on the anti-gun rant are not protected by guns.

As far as easing the fear - your fear is not my problem. Nor, is it a reason or justification for me to give up my rights.

PabloJ
May 6, 2013, 07:45 AM
Great idea Lizzie government officials should confiscate all legally owned firearms so only criminals, law enforcement and military personnel have them. When someone breaks into your home in middle of the night just dial 911 and pray REAL HARD.

PBR Streetgang
May 6, 2013, 08:14 AM
First off there ia allready a tax Called Pittman-Robertson Act......this bill
was enacted in 1937 with a 10% tax On firearms .In the 1970's a admendment was added to put another 10% tax on handguns, ammo and firearms accessories.11% on archery equipment also.
Half of these monies was mandated to go to firearms safety classes.

where is this money going now????

Midwest
May 6, 2013, 08:30 AM
First off there ia allready a tax Called Pittman-Robertson Act......this bill
was enacted in 1937 with a 10% tax On firearms .In the 1970's a admendment was added to put another 10% tax on handguns, ammo and firearms accessories.11% on archery equipment also.
Half of these monies was mandated to go to firearms safety classes.

where is this money going now????
Probably to The Brady Bunch, anti-gun politicians and Gun Buybacks.
.
.
.
Seriously there should be financial accounting for these taxes somewhere on line. It must be on some govt. website somewhere.

Art Eatman
May 6, 2013, 08:38 AM
Those excise taxes were called for by hunters. They are returned to the states for wildlife management, pro-rated by the number of hunting licenses. In 1937, the majority of all centerfire rifles were used for hunting. Rimfires? Probably a mix of hunting and plinking.

A tax on ammo wouldn't affect the amount of criminal shootings. The gain from robbing a mom'n'pop would buy plenty of ammo from some other street-worm.

JShirley
May 6, 2013, 08:52 AM
Ms. Winston,

Welcome to THR. Unfortunately, your first post indicates either irrationality or a poorly-conceived understanding of the problem, which is not "people firing weapons" but unnecessary violence towards our fellow man.

Y'all, I went back and carefully read this poster's first post again, wondered at the bad phraseology, then clicked the link...spam. Sometimes we give people too much credit.
John

627PCFan
May 6, 2013, 08:57 AM
The trolls are up early today

Colonel
May 7, 2013, 08:06 AM
Chris Rock suggested in a stand-up routine that if bullets were made too expensive, there would be much fewer shootings. Cook County, Illinois, seems to agree, which is why that region, which Chicago occupies, is proposing a bullet tax that would help defray the costs of crime.

Does anyone really believe that Cook County believes this will reduce crime?

Raise money for the nanny bureaucracy, yes.

Oppress gun owners, yes.

Repress gun ownership, yes.

But reduce crime? As Chris Rock might say, "Let's keep it real!"

Pilot
May 7, 2013, 08:16 AM
More, creative ideas to restrict the use of guns by law abiding citizens.

1911Tuner
May 7, 2013, 09:01 AM
Of course. The power to tax is the power to destroy, and that is after all, the plan.

Jim Watson
May 7, 2013, 09:34 AM
Yup.
$200 isn't much now, if you really want a machine gun, but when passed in 1934 it was an 80% tax on a $250 Thompson. Admittedly intended to discourage purchase because they realized a complete ban was unconstitutional. Just think if it had been indexed to inflation.

bubba in ca
May 7, 2013, 10:34 PM
Nevada? Welcome to cowboy socialism. Look what they have in the Senate. Vegas is a big voting machine for Libs, and the little counties don`t count for much.

Ash
May 8, 2013, 06:11 AM
I was with my students yesterday in the last couple of minutes and one brought up that guns should be banned. I posed the question to them this way: can an axe take credit for felling a tree? Of course not, the man wielding the axe felled the tree. I then pointed out the genocide in Rwanda was completed mostly with machetes, where so many bodies were dumped into the river that Lake Victoria had them floating about. I could go no farther other than pose the question and make the observations, of course.

A tax designed to deny a right is unconstitutional. Cigarettes are not a right. Guns and ammo are.

cwo2lt
May 8, 2013, 04:14 PM
Cigarettes are not a right.
You might want to read the 9th Amendment again.

RetiredUSNChief
May 8, 2013, 04:44 PM
You can tax all these other things all you want...cars, gas, cigarettes, sodas, blah, blah, blah...none of these are rights guaranteed in writing anywhere, especially in the U.S. Constitution.

Taxing firearms and ammunition in this fashion IS infringing on our right to keep and bear arms, because it's deliberately intended to make ownership and use by citizens cost prohibitive.

And pardon me, heidisoon, but Cris Rock is a comedian and what he says in his routine is deliberately geared get a comedic reaction from his target audience. It has nothing to do with reality beyond that.

If ammunition were to be made so expensive that very few people could afford to shoot, then the people MOST affected by this will be those who own and use firearms for hobbies, sports, hunting, and personal defense. Why? Because these people are the ones who buy ammunition in large quantities to support these uses. Criminals, on the other hand, care only about the rounds they have in their guns. Buying a few rounds to meet that demand is a hugely disproportionate fraction of the whole and therefore insignificantly affected, if at all, by such exorbitantly priced ammunition.

And a "bullet tax" to "defray the cost of crime" is a load of cow pucky. Where does private ownership of firearms and ammunition contribute significantly to crime? Nowhere. Where does private ownership of firearms and ammunition contribute significantly towards DETERING crime? Everywhere there aren't restrictive gun laws.

So a "bullet tax" to "defray the cost of crime" is counter-intuitive. Actually, it's a blatant lie.

And taxing guns so that the government can support "buybacks" is, to say the least, a conflict of interest. That's taxing people to support government disarming of the citizens. That's so wrong on so many levels.


There are two reasons, and two reasons ONLY for these kinds of proposed taxes on firearms and ammunition:

1. Infringe on the Constitutional right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

2. Move money out of the pockets of law-abiding gun owners and into the government.


How 'bout we just abide by that wonderful 200+ year old document, called the U.S. Constitution, and all it's Amendments and move on with our lives.

splattergun
May 8, 2013, 07:23 PM
I propose a 1st amendment tax. 5 cents per word on every proposal to restrict any other Constitutional Right. Each paper copy, electronic copy or verbal repetition shall be taxed at the same rate as the original.

BTW, don't firearms and ammunition already get taxed under the Federal sporting goods excise tax scheme?

JRH6856
May 8, 2013, 07:38 PM
You might want to read the 9th Amendment again.
OK, cigarettes are not a constitutionally protected right. :rolleyes:

cwo2lt
May 8, 2013, 08:21 PM
Sure they are. They are not enumerated but they are protected

JRH6856
May 8, 2013, 10:07 PM
To an extent. All rights are subject to regulation and restriction by law at the federal, state or local level. Even those rights specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights for protection from the federal government, and those rights whose protections have been incorporated against the states. may be restricted to meet a compelling government interest if there is no other way to meet that interest and the restriction does not go beyond that interest.

No right is completely protected from regulation or restriction.

TCB in TN
May 8, 2013, 10:32 PM
How about we raise money to give to the victims of violence by putting violent felons into camps and making them work to pay for the Dr bills damages and to replace property?:D

Speedo66
May 8, 2013, 11:29 PM
Right now the most stolen items in cities, i.e., taken from the person, are cell phones. In San Francisco, nearly1/2 of all robberies from the person involve cell phones.

Perhaps they should be heavily taxed to cover crime victims expenses and to cover the police work the crimes require? I'm sure no one would complain about that. Yeah, right!

Byrd666
May 8, 2013, 11:40 PM
Ridiculous

cwo2lt
May 9, 2013, 11:15 AM
To an extent. All rights are subject to regulation and restriction by law at the federal, state or local level. Even those rights specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights for protection from the federal government, and those rights whose protections have been incorporated against the states. may be restricted to meet a compelling government interest if there is no other way to meet that interest and the restriction does not go beyond that interest.

No right is completely protected from regulation or restriction.

You are correct, no right is 100% safe from Federal regulation. That was not my point however.

My point to Ash is just because a right in not listed in the text of the Constitution does not mean it is not a right.

Smoke em if ya got em.:D

Ash
May 10, 2013, 07:29 PM
But, cigarettes may be banned without risk of constitutional issues. You may smoke as long as you wish, as often as you wish, unless it is declared illegal, which it can be. Ergo, it is not an established right. While the constitution points out it is not the case that the only rights you have are in the Bill of Rights, that you may do many things legally not specifically spelled out in the Bill of Rights, it does not specifically protect those rights. You do not have the right to drive on public roads, hunt, create or posses child porn, etc. The former activities are permitted, which is to say you have permission provided to purchase a license, while the latter is banned outright unless it happens to be a Led Zeppelin record cover. Smoking is not an established right. You have a right to smoke, but only because the government has not specifically acted to ban it - and even then, it has specifically acted to ban the practice in many places.

TCB in TN
May 10, 2013, 09:56 PM
But, cigarettes may be banned without risk of constitutional issues. You may smoke as long as you wish, as often as you wish, unless it is declared illegal, which it can be. Ergo, it is not an established right. While the constitution points out it is not the case that the only rights you have are in the Bill of Rights, that you may do many things legally not specifically spelled out in the Bill of Rights, it does not specifically protect those rights. You do not have the right to drive on public roads, hunt, create or posses child porn, etc. The former activities are permitted, which is to say you have permission provided to purchase a license, while the latter is banned outright unless it happens to be a Led Zeppelin record cover. Smoking is not an established right. You have a right to smoke, but only because the government has not specifically acted to ban it - and even then, it has specifically acted to ban the practice in many places.
But the difference between banning smoking in public and fire arm ownership/possession is that smoking in public may infringe upon the rights of others.

JRH6856
May 10, 2013, 11:12 PM
But the difference between banning smoking in public and fire arm ownership/possession is that smoking in public may infringe upon the rights of others.

Yeah...and there are a lot of others that seem to think that firearms possession infringes upon their right not to be afraid. :rolleyes:

But the comparisons are not equivalent. It is not the possession of tobacco that is harmful to others, it is the use. And it is the use of firearms that can be harmful to others, not possession.

Use of firearms is already very tightly regulated and restricted by law

Alizard
May 11, 2013, 01:33 AM
The poll tax is a superb example in this instance as it was a tax designed to deny or punish rights.Actually, the poll tax (and the ammo/gun tax) main purpose is to "filter" out the lower segments of society from exercising those particular rights..... which has both a socio-economic component and racial motive.

Wealthy people are not affected by such taxes, since they have plenty of disposable income.

Alizard
May 11, 2013, 01:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash View Post
But, cigarettes may be banned without risk of constitutional issues. Because the "lawful" (as designed and intended) use of cigarettes kills bystanders which is not true of guns.

Carl N. Brown
May 11, 2013, 06:51 AM
Same as Poll Tax. Show ID, proof of residency? Yes. Tax? No.

What's next? A literacy test? ("Read this headline off the Mandarin edition of Hong Kong Times, boy.")

highlander 5
May 11, 2013, 07:40 AM
The proposed tax if passed, will never go to offset the cost of crime victims. It will end up in general revenue to be spent on what ever new goofy project that the legislator's retarded minds come up with. Example here in Ma the tax on gas is supposed to go into a separate fund to repair roads,bridges and the like. But it ends up in general revenues and is spent on everything but. This was taken to our Supreme Judicial Court and the opinion given was even though the funds from the gas tax was supposed to be for road repair it can be spent on what ever the legislators feel like spending it on.

PabloJ
May 11, 2013, 08:26 AM
Proposals to tax guns and ammunition

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/07/gun-taxes-owners-second-amendment/2049363/

Interesting article on how certain areas of the country are considering taxes on Firearms and ammo. Some of us might have heard Cook County IL and California proposing to tax guns or ammo.

It seems like there are other areas considering the proposals as well. We should do what we can to not only oppose these proposals but we should alert others to what is being proposed in these other states. There is even an proposal for a Federal tax in addition to already 11% excise tax.

"Legislation introduced in Congress would add a 10% tax to handgun purchases to pay for gun buybacks and other programs. Bills creating new taxes are pending in state legislatures in New Jersey and Washington state."

I paraphrased and reworded some of the proposals. Perhaps others could chime in with information on what is proposed in their states and maybe we can shed a little more light on all of this.


Federal 10% tax on handguns
California 5 cent tax on every bullet
Cook County IL $25 tax and ammo
Massachusetts 25% tax on ammo and firearms
Maryland 50% tax on ammunition and $25 for handgun license
Nevada $25 on gun sales and 2 cents tax on each bullet
NJ and Washington state considering taxes
If that money went to good causes like helping underprivileged youth from economically- challenged areas become successful members of society I would have no problem with pay out extra cash.

JRH6856
May 11, 2013, 12:08 PM
If that money went to good causes like helping underprivileged youth from economically- challenged areas become successful members of society I would have no problem with pay out extra cash.
If such a contribution were voluntary, I would have no problem with it either. But has nothing to do with firearms and ammunition.

Zeke/PA
May 11, 2013, 12:18 PM
How about we raise money to give to the victims of violence by putting violent felons into camps and making them work to pay for the Dr bills damages and to replace property?:D
By today's standards that would be considered Cruel and Unusual.

JRH6856
May 11, 2013, 12:38 PM
By today's standards, just about any actual punishment is unusual.

Solo
May 11, 2013, 01:16 PM
I don't think the phrase "Send them to the camps" has ever been a precursor to good things outside of the Boy Scouts.

foghornl
May 11, 2013, 02:38 PM
Gall.....They Got

Sense...they ain't

If you enjoyed reading about "Proposals to tax guns and ammunition" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!