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, 05:14 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 8,840,762 times
Reputation: 4162

Advertisements

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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-26-2013, 05:16 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
14,372 posts, read 8,713,330 times
Reputation: 6649
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.
...but they don't want to ban guns, right?

Politicians want to protect our rights, for a price.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2013, 05:32 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 8,620,885 times
Reputation: 6483
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?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2013, 05:45 PM
 
Location: Long Island
42,674 posts, read 17,522,405 times
Reputation: 10016
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?
There are already liquor taxes, cigarette taxes why not a gun and ammo tax if it promotes the public health.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2013, 05:46 PM
 
40,361 posts, read 21,615,424 times
Reputation: 9096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
There are already liquor taxes, cigarette taxes why not a gun and ammo tax if it promotes the public health.
Voter IDs are free....and how would a tax on guns and ammo promote public health?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2013, 05:49 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 8,620,885 times
Reputation: 6483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
There are already liquor taxes, cigarette taxes why not a gun and ammo tax if it promotes the public health.
Because you should not tax civil rights.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2013, 05:49 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 8,840,762 times
Reputation: 4162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
There are already liquor taxes, cigarette taxes why not a gun and ammo tax if it promotes the public health.
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2013, 05:49 PM
 
4,571 posts, read 3,174,735 times
Reputation: 3261
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
Voter IDs are free....and how would a tax on guns and ammo promote public health?
It would only in the mind of a moron.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2013, 05:50 PM
 
44,892 posts, read 19,309,853 times
Reputation: 10580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
There are already liquor taxes, cigarette taxes why not a gun and ammo tax if it promotes the public health.
" 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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2013, 05:55 PM
 
40,361 posts, read 21,615,424 times
Reputation: 9096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed from California View Post
It would only in the mind of a moron.
I know, thanks for backing me up....these leftist that think putting a tax on guns and ammo are morons and would really do something.....
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