U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-26-2013, 05:57 PM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
36,565 posts, read 47,190,370 times
Reputation: 47502

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
" why not a gun and ammo tax?"

Because we have ALREADY been paying an 11% tax for years. Many politicians, like Clinton, used the money for reasons other then what the tax was supposed to cover.
Called Pittman-Robertson. To be used for programs promoting conservation, wildlands, purchase of undeveloped land for conservation, wetlands restoration, etc.

Seems like gun owners and hunters pay the freight for those who use the above natural areas but do not buy products covered by Pittman-Robertson (for the record, the tax is paid on all retail firearms purchases, ammunition purchases, archery equipment, fishing equipment and any other items such as clothing used in hunting or fishing).
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-26-2013, 06:08 PM
 
Location: MS
4,396 posts, read 4,384,861 times
Reputation: 1555
People will find a way to get around it. Since the receiver is considered the "gun" by the BATFE, just buy a receiver. A quality stripped AR-15 lower is $90 right now. The rest of parts to put one together are considered accessories. It hurts less to be taxed on $90 than $900.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2013, 06:10 PM
 
11,087 posts, read 7,546,517 times
Reputation: 6387
Quote:
A pair of Democratic lawmakers are proposing steep new taxes on handguns and ammunition, and tying the revenues to programs aimed at preventing gun violence
10 years or more ago I told people the government was practicing on smokers to see how to impose behavioral control on the population. Non-smokers didn't care.

You're all smokers now.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2013, 06:19 PM
 
Location: 500 miles from home
33,731 posts, read 19,166,684 times
Reputation: 25503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
Federal District Court immediately ruled that the 1934 NFA was an unconstitutional violation of the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. The judge pointed out that the NFA was clearly an act meant to restrict firearms, not to collect revenue, since very few people would pay a $200 tax to transfer an old $5 shotgun such as the one owned by the defendant. These laws would be similar.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Since it's been infringed about a thousand times already - not sure how well that part holds up. Let's not even go to 'well regulated militia'.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2013, 06:21 PM
 
25,627 posts, read 32,703,961 times
Reputation: 23165
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
So a $10 ID is too much to spend to vote and violates a civil right, but 11% tax on every gun and 50% tax on ammunition and $500 transfer fee for certain guns is ok?
The ID would be free. So its even more hypocritcal for *******s.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2013, 06:59 PM
 
27,321 posts, read 14,014,905 times
Reputation: 12050
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
So a $10 ID is too much to spend to vote and violates a civil right, but 11% tax on every gun and 50% tax on ammunition and $500 transfer fee for certain guns is ok?
To LSD's it is. They are salivating over that huge source of revenue that they use for social experimentation.

They have been trying for years to unlock the Airport Trust Fund for their social experimentation and have failed every time.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2013, 07:01 PM
 
27,321 posts, read 14,014,905 times
Reputation: 12050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert_J View Post
People will find a way to get around it. Since the receiver is considered the "gun" by the BATFE, just buy a receiver. A quality stripped AR-15 lower is $90 right now. The rest of parts to put one together are considered accessories. It hurts less to be taxed on $90 than $900.
Reload your own ammo.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2013, 07:14 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 15,403,277 times
Reputation: 7965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
More tax increases from the usual suspects.

This is very similar to the National Firearms Act of 1934, which put a tax of $200 on each and every transfer of a short-barrelled shotgun, machine gun, and (oddly) any silencer. That was at a time when $200 was more than a month's pay for most people, and many of the items taxed cost less than 1/10 of that amount to purchase.

A lawsuit was brought, and the Federal District Court immediately ruled that the 1934 NFA was an unconstitutional violation of the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. The judge pointed out that the NFA was clearly an act meant to restrict firearms, not to collect revenue, since very few people would pay a $200 tax to transfer an old $5 shotgun such as the one owned by the defendant.

The case was appealed to the Supreme Court. When the trial date came, no one from the Defense showed up, and the Court rubber-stamped a number of false statements from the government Prosecution team, into an Opinion Of The Court. The Opinion says that, since no one refuted what the Prosecution said, the Court was ruling in their favor. The case was US v. Miller in 1939, 307 US 174.

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

Looks like the Democrats are trying to find a similar windfall. If you can lie and cheat once and get away with it, why not try it again?

-----------------------------------------

Dem bill would trigger huge new taxes on guns, ammo | Fox News

Dem bill would trigger huge new taxes on guns, ammo

By Perry Chiaramonte
Published August 26, 2013
FoxNews.com

A pair of Democratic lawmakers are proposing steep new taxes on handguns and ammunition, and tying the revenues to programs aimed at preventing gun violence.

Called the “Gun Violence Prevention and Safe Communities Act," the bill sponsored by William Pascrell, D-N.J., and Danny Davis, D-Ill., would nearly double the current 11 percent tax on handguns, while raising the levy on bullets and cartridges from 11 percent to 50 percent.

“What the anti-gun interests can’t ban, they want to tax it out of existence,” Alan Gottlieb, chairman for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, told FoxNews.com. “It’s nothing more than confiscatory taxation.

The bill would also increase the transfer tax on all weapons (except antique guns) covered under the National Firearms Act (which excludes most common guns) from $200 to $500 and index to inflation and increase the transfer tax for any other weapon from $5 to $100.
The bill would exempt all federal, state and local agencies, including police departments, from paying the tax.
Danny Davis is the same Obama crony who likes voting base on race.
Rahm Emanuel and the Politics of Race in Chicago

What a surprise that he is a gun control proponent. Not really. Racism, division and seeking a monopoly on violence go hand in hand
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2013, 07:43 PM
 
48,508 posts, read 88,612,073 times
Reputation: 18188
Propose is the right words; feeding the liberal knowing its going no where .If they can tax it democrats will do so as long as they don't pay the tax .
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2013, 07:45 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,038 posts, read 31,588,154 times
Reputation: 7853
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
So a $10 ID is too much to spend to vote and violates a civil right, but 11% tax on every gun and 50% tax on ammunition and $500 transfer fee for certain guns is ok?
Guns aren't free to begin with, why no outrage there?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top