$1,000 Gun Tax Pushed as “Role Model” for States

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Generally I agree with you.

But, if it is to happen, however unlikely, this is exactly how it's going to happen.

Tax something to such an extent that no one can afford it. What matters a right, if one can't afford to exercise it?

a reply to: seagull

But that's not realistic. More than half of the States have GOP controlled State legislatures and governorships. Not to mention, there are a lot of left wing members who are also pro-gun. So I just can't see many parts of the country adopting similar gun laws. Even liberals like myself are pro-gun to a large extent (though I prefer things like background checks and possible mental health evaluations).

I made sure to point out the CNMI's unique status because they're literally not given equal rights as other American citizens. I was trying to put it into perspective on why I doubt this would catch on. I guess it would be like fearmongering that a specific Native American reserve's new rulings on casinos would soon be implemented nationwide.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Stranger things have happened.

Though I do agree with you. It is unlikely.

But...

Northern Marianas. Seattle. This is a presidence I, personally, find disturbing. So, I'll stay aware of this sort of thing in state and local legislatures.

Does no harm, and may do some good. IMHO.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Stranger things have happened.

Though I do agree with you. It is unlikely.

But...

Northern Marianas. Seattle. This is a presidence I, personally, find disturbing. So, I'll stay aware of this sort of thing in state and local legislatures.

Does no harm, and may do some good. IMHO.

Seattle's law is a $25 gun tax and (I think) a 5 cent tax on bullets. I think the $25 gun tax is only for new purchases. I honestly don't see how it's any different from the "sin taxes" that are added to alcohol and tobacco products. They say the revenue is supposed to go towards the city's annual costs for gun violence incidences (somewhere in this link lol).

The law is based on a similar $25 gun tax that passed in Cook County, Illinois, in 2013. The Seattle budget office estimates the law will raise $300,000 to $500,000 a year.

Seattle estimates that direct medical costs from gunshot wounds totaled $17 million last year, with taxpayers picking up $12 million of the costs. The Urban Institute estimated that gun violence costs U.S. taxpayers $500 million a year.

Oh & no worries. I hope my words weren't rude or abrasive because I didn't mean them to be. But every now & then, the clickbait titles irk me. Especially when the underlying issues are nowhere near as large as the kneejerk reactions make them out to be.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

No problems, my friend.

The only thing that worries me about this is the presidence.

We have a "massive tax" on cigarettes and nobody seems to care. I am not saying the tax on guns is right, but a 100% tax on smokes would probably be argued in favor here. A $1000 tax on weapons, unless you're buying a .22 at the local 5 and dime seems around 100%. ok maybe 200% I agree it is excessive.

Colorado now charges 37.00 for a background check with CBI I voted for that.
It makes sense.
But what I saw listed on that would be a call to arms if they tried it.
I 'M QUITE surprised we have shown such restraint myself.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
But what I saw listed on that would be a call to arms if they tried it.

Who you gonna vent your frustrations on? Your neighbors?

a reply to: Snarl

We'll do this ...rather easily...www.bob-owens.com...
We've done it in other countries to get rid of socialists.

a reply to: tinner07

You're not wrong.

Those "sin" taxes are just as wrong.

A small sales tax, sure, don't like it, but I suppose govt. needs revenue. But these monstrous taxes on tobacco, booze, and gasoline are excessive in the extreme.

originally posted by: KawRider9
a reply to: xuenchen

Damn, as a collector, Hunter and sport shooter, I'd owe more in firearm taxes than I make.

Screw that!

You 'hunt' with pistols?
They are speaking of pistols.

National Firearms Act of 1934 - legislation through taxation
As they were unable to amend the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment, Congress simply passed an IRS Bill making certain types of weapons illegal (without the tax stamp they control).

Sonzinsky v. United States in 1937
The Supreme Court ruled that Congress is fully within their rights to tax as they see fit and to legislate through taxation. This case also ruled that taxation was not an infringement.



Just as the Brady bill was an extension of the 1968 Gun Control Act, this idea is simply a further extension of already set procedures and precedent.

They know Americans aren't going to do anything but scream from their couches about the taxes anyway. Once the cattle cars show up I'll just be laughing at the liberals that said "it'll all be OK".

originally posted by: projectvxn
Poor people don't deserve to defend themselves.

Never mind they're the most at risk of being victims of crime.

Course not!

Why would you want the serfs to be armed!

a reply to: namelesss

Lots of people hunt with pistols. That's why there's a season for it. You have a problem with that?

And yes, I know the tax is for pistols. What's to stop them from expanding this tax to other firearms? Once you start the ball rolling, it gets hard to stop.

Or is this like the ACA, just need to give it time to see how good it is?

a reply to: xuenchen

well at least you still have your rights to bare arms - but can you guys afford it?

it sounds like they only want a certain class of people to be able to have guns. Lower end users, drug dealers etc would feel the hurt. If you dont and work and you pay £1,000 tax, would alarm bells ring their end as to how yo ucan afford it. then maybe start investigation.?

well least the middle class and rich can keep guns

originally posted by: KawRider9
a reply to: namelesss

Lots of people hunt with pistols. That's why there's a season for it. You have a problem with that?

And yes, I know the tax is for pistols. What's to stop them from expanding this tax to other firearms? Once you start the ball rolling, it gets hard to stop.

Or is this like the ACA, just need to give it time to see how good it is?

It appears to me that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with pistols.
And, despite your 'personal preferences', you do not "need" a pistol to 'hunt'.
There is far more chance of just wounding the animal, rather than a clean painless kill.
Yeah, I know how 'you' can shoot the eye from a mailman at 100 meters, with a derringer, but still it is no good reason to 'protect' the tool of the cowardly criminals.
Other than the government/military, when did someone criminally shoot someone with a long gun?

a reply to: namelesss

In point of fact I have, and probably will again.

I've got my eye on a pair of single shot pistols that will be just about perfect for boars.

a reply to: namelesss

I 'm from Colorado sSprings we had a NUT with and Ak then one with an AR15..www.cbsnews.com...
I need that pistol to protect I couldn't care LESS about opinions of the violent collaterals.
The ONLY ones that would be disarmed would be innocent people allowing nefarious individuals to gain in the SAME social parity seen in such wonderful places like Chicago,Baltimore and any other urban cesspool driven into the ground by inept policies.
So again the answer quite finally is indeed yet "NO"
Weep and tear your clothing as you will world,we have known no caste structure and will decide for ourselves.

NWO hard at work !!!!!!! for their future ,Global Concentration Camp

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: namelesss

I 'm from Colorado Springs we had a NUT with and Ak then one with an AR15

Irrelevant.
The stats remain the same.

I need that pistol to protect

Really?
Is there a credible threat against your life, or have you simply been manipulated into your life of fear?