Your Guns WILL be Taxed, You Suckers and Sinners [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Your Guns WILL be Taxed, You Suckers and Sinners


NorthCarolinaLiberty
12-16-2012, 13:58
The national AWB issue will be real, but will also be a sweet diversion to implement incremental sin taxes in localities. I might guess that several factors will perfectly dovetail to make this happen:




Sin taxes have a track record for passing due to "undesirable" behavior
Localities are starving for money as the American economy continues to decline
Obsession with national politics leaves local issues ignored by many
The emotion of a children's tragedy will help stifle some debate, as recently witnessed in GNG
An excellent overview of the folly of sin taxes here: http://mercatus.org/publication/taxing-sin

Chicago's gun tax proposal here. Preckwinkle proposes that the money be used for gun victims. In light of recent events, how easy will it be to disagree with her?
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/cook-county-illinois-drops-proposed-ammunition-tax-proceeding-proposed-gun-tax

Atlas
12-16-2012, 14:08
A 200% tax on ammo?

smokin762
12-16-2012, 14:16
The average person will only be a Law Abiding Citizen until the government dictates otherwise. As gun owners, we sometimes joke around about being the evil black rifle owners. I think the light will be shining like a 10,000 Lumen spot light on us now.

Talk about discrimination. :upeyes:

beforeobamabans
12-17-2012, 04:12
A 200% tax on ammo?

^^^^^This.

I have long thought the antis would use ammo control to get around 2A. It says we have a right to bear arms. It doesn't say they have to be loaded.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-04-2013, 16:28
Incremental taxes is the shrewd approach of choice. Bye's 50% tax proposal on ammo and mags will need to be toned down so that it can slip through. The same thing is done with tobacco and gas. Hell, you don't even need to be slick about it. Roberts gives a thumbs up to Obamacare by calling it a tax.


"Institute a 50-percent sales tax on the sale of ammunition and firearms magazines;"

News from state senator Beth Bye in Connecticut:
http://www.senatedems.ct.gov/pr/bye-121220.php

Riverkilt
01-04-2013, 16:57
My guns were already taxed in North Carolina back in the 60's. I had to pay a poll tax which included a tax on personal property I owned.

And of course paid sales tax on recent gun purchases....

Taxing my guns ain't nothin' new...just sayin'...

Comrade Bork
01-04-2013, 17:09
There is already a 11% excise tax on guns and ammo. Has been for decades. Pittman-Robertson.

It is built right into the price of every gun and round you buy by the manufacturer, and passed along to you, the ultimate payer of the tax, in the purchase price.

Not to mention the $200 "stamp" fee for Class III items.

Although, when Congress voted to stop issuing (and taking those $200 fees for) tax stamps on Machine Guns back in 1986, thereby freezing the number (about a 1/4 million of them) "taxed" prior to the cutoff (and making most of them too valuable to actually shoot anymore) it is the only example I can think of of Congress actually ENDING a source of tax revenue, willingly!

If you have a "right" to vote, were not "Poll Taxes" declared unconstitutional?

As in "if you can tax a right, it is not a right. Especially if you require a tax on it, then refuse to accept the taxes".

Until SCotUS clearly declared that we have a RIGHT to Keep Arms in the "Heller" (& McDonald) cases, the .Gov could get away with these "tax" scams on guns.

I wonder if they are aware that in the light of Heller, that may no longer be the case?

That the taxes are just continuing because they have not been challenged through the Courts?

Yet.

Riverkilt
01-04-2013, 17:19
For sure Poll Taxes were declared unconstitutional. That didn't mean I still didn't have to pay them in North Carolina in 1965. I also had to pass a literacy test to vote in North Carolina in 1965. It was what it was.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-04-2013, 17:26
Taxing my guns ain't nothin' new...just sayin'...

I guess that is part of the point, RK. It will be much easier for politicos to incrementally change something quantitatively, rather than qualitatively. People will be distracted by the hyperbole of national politics and some far out proposals, but people will not notice the incremental changes right under their noses.

humanguerrilla
01-04-2013, 18:28
A 200% tax on ammo?

I can see it coming.

Bill seeking to end internet/mail order ammo sales, report bulk purchasing and create licensing of ammunition dealers
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:4:./temp/~bdzMvE::|/bss/|

When all ammo and component sales must be face to face point of sale they become easier to tax.

Gunnut 45/454
01-04-2013, 19:45
Idaho Constitution:

Text of Section 11:
Right to Keep and Bear Arms

The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.


No such laws State or Federal shall apply! If the Feds pass such a law it can not nor will it be applied to Idaho citizens as it will violate our Constitution!:supergrin:

Cavalry Doc
01-04-2013, 19:52
A 200% tax on ammo?

Good thing I can make my own. :shocked:

SCmasterblaster
01-05-2013, 15:48
A 200% tax on ammo?

Gag me with an AK47!

marchboom
01-06-2013, 10:00
A 200% tax on ammo?

Only the rich will be allowed to enjoy the 2nd Amendment.

Those rich democrat politicians will screw us every chance they get!

SPIN2010
01-06-2013, 10:18
Only the rich will be allowed to enjoy the 2nd Amendment.

Those rich democrat politicians will screw us every chance they get!

As the letter from the Marine stated to fINEsWINE: I am not your peasant. It is time to stand together and foil (the attempt of) these unamerican politicians.

NO POSTURING, NO TAX, NO REGISTRATION, NOTHING! Period! Drop all attempts. ENFORCE THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS YOU ______!

... and arms are not complete without ammunition. GET FOR REAL!

kirgi08
01-06-2013, 11:45
tagged.

t4terrific
01-06-2013, 12:13
Only the rich will be allowed to enjoy the 2nd Amendment.

Those rich democrat politicians will screw us every chance they get!

Like England and Australia.

cowboywannabe
01-06-2013, 12:30
Idaho Constitution:

Text of Section 11:
Right to Keep and Bear Arms

The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.


No such laws State or Federal shall apply! If the Feds pass such a law it can not nor will it be applied to Idaho citizens as it will violate our Constitution!:supergrin: :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Gunnut 45/454
01-06-2013, 12:50
cowboywannabe
Carry to explain!!:upeyes:

Further more where in the 2nd does it say they can tax the right to own. Where has the SCOTUS said they have the right to tax anyone in the exersise of a right? :whistling:

certifiedfunds
01-06-2013, 12:50
A 200% tax on ammo?

I agree that taxation will be used at some point. That's fairly obvious. However I don't think they can get 2 hot buttons right now. Taxation will come later after registration is achieved and make a nation awash in felony tax evaders.

cowboywannabe
01-06-2013, 12:52
cowboywannabe
Carry to explain!!:upeyes:

Further more where in the 2nd does it say they can tax the right to own. Where has the SCOTUS said they have the right to tax anyone in the exersise of a right? :whistling:

you act like the gubmint will go by whats in the constitution..:rofl: ever heard of executive order? if not you will real quick.

certifiedfunds
01-06-2013, 12:53
cowboywannabe
Carry to explain!!:upeyes:

Further more where in the 2nd does it say they can tax the right to own. Where has the SCOTUS said they have the right to tax anyone in the exersise of a right? :whistling:

Lol. Simple. The interstate commerce clause. Same thing they use to justify the War on Drugs you support.

You folks made a deal with the devil.

certifiedfunds
01-06-2013, 12:56
Would have been a cold day in hell before Ron Paul would sign ANY new gun laws.

But you all ridiculed him for deferring to the COTUS on every issue.

Cavalry Doc
01-06-2013, 13:46
Would have been a cold day in hell before Ron Paul would sign ANY new gun laws.

But you all ridiculed him for deferring to the COTUS on every issue.

Guess you are sorta right. He'll never be in a position to sign or veto such a law....... ever.


You have to admit, he said some silly things that would have sunk any of the candidates.

certifiedfunds
01-06-2013, 14:02
Guess you are sorta right. He'll never be in a position to sign or veto such a law....... ever.


You have to admit, he said some silly things that would have sunk any of the candidates.

Doc do you honestly believe there is a chance in hell a president Paul would sign a single gun reg?

I remember very clearly what issues the neocons here took issue with. And who they are.

certifiedfunds
01-06-2013, 14:03
They have no problem with big unconstitutional government in areas they agree with. Looks like they will reap what they've sewn.

Chuck TX
01-07-2013, 10:43
They have no problem with big unconstitutional government in areas they agree with. Looks like they will reap what they've sewn.

That's how we got here. Many folks will gladly support a mechanism of infringement without realizing it will eventually be used on them.

Frankenstein made a monster and it turned on him.

kirgi08
01-07-2013, 12:55
Ignorance of the COTUS does not excuse one.How many folk have been trashed because they were ignorant of a statute.The COTUS is out there for all ta read,local laws,not so much.'08.

pugman
01-07-2013, 13:24
A 200% tax on ammo?

Wisconsinís cigarette tax is $2.52/pack; depending on the brand you smoke and the prices I see at my local convenience store this accounts for 33-50% of the price.

Considering, what Iím seeing people pay for ammo now shooters will pay it. I could see 9 mm going for $50/100 round for the cheap stuff.

I can see it coming.

Bill seeking to end internet/mail order ammo sales, report bulk purchasing and create licensing of ammunition dealers
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:4:./temp/~bdzMvE::|/bss/|

When all ammo and component sales must be face to face point of sale they become easier to tax.

Good thing I can make my own. :shocked:

While I donít give the government much credit when it comes to brains Iím sure they remember to add this tax to components, reloaders, etc.

This said, proof the government doesnít give a damn about Sandy Hook except the opportunity it provides: How will this tax prevent further crimes?

Face it guys Ė one more mass shooting in a mall, school, wherever and a bill will be fast tracked so quick it will be law before it makes this board

certifiedfunds
01-07-2013, 16:13
That's how we got here. Many folks will gladly support a mechanism of infringement without realizing it will eventually be used on them.

Frankenstein made a monster and it turned on him.

Exactly. That is why libertarian types support gay marriage, legal weed and so forth. Even if you don't like it we realize that once you empower the government to move outside of its cage, its out of the freakin cage.

Take gunhaver. Guy (supposedly) likes his guns. He also supports Obamacare because his girlfriend regurgitates her food like a bovine and needs some expensive medicine to fix it. I've told him several times that a government big enough to give her medicine is big enough to take your guns away. He doesn't get it.

certifiedfunds
01-07-2013, 16:14
Once they require EVERY gun sale to go through an FFL, they can do 3 things:

1. Tighten the 4473
2. Databse
3. Tax, tax, tax every gunsale

why not tax it now on the 4473? Don't want to push more into the secondary market and off radar.

Cavalry Doc
01-07-2013, 18:29
Doc do you honestly believe there is a chance in hell a president Paul would sign a single gun reg?

I remember very clearly what issues the neocons here took issue with. And who they are.

I agree that a President Paul would never sign another restrictive gun reg. I also believe that Dr. Paul never had a chance to become president. Not my fault, not any single individuals fault more than his own. He had a lot of baggage with the newsletters, and the quirky statements about submarines and all the rest.

I would still give everything I currently own to have him as president than what we have now.



The Reagan Conservatives and the Libertarians combined are outnumbered. The scale has tipped. The takers have won, and finally realized that they can vote to take things from others.

It's gonna be a wild ride brother. I'm not telling to you dig a bunker in the back yard or fashion tinfoil hats, but I sure hope you are preparing for a very rainy day, that lasts a long time.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/CavDoc-3-2.gif

When in combat, remember to try to look unimportant. The enemy may be low on ammo. :whistling:

certifiedfunds
01-07-2013, 19:19
I agree that a President Paul would never sign another restrictive gun reg. I also believe that Dr. Paul never had a chance to become president. Not my fault, not any single individuals fault more than his own. He had a lot of baggage with the newsletters, and the quirky statements about submarines and all the rest.

I would still give everything I currently own to have him as president than what we have now.



The Reagan Conservatives and the Libertarians combined are outnumbered. The scale has tipped. The takers have won, and finally realized that they can vote to take things from others.

It's gonna be a wild ride brother. I'm not telling to you dig a bunker in the back yard or fashion tinfoil hats, but I sure hope you are preparing for a very rainy day, that lasts a long time.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/CavDoc-3-2.gif

When in combat, remember to try to look unimportant. The enemy may be low on ammo. :whistling:

Dig a bunker in the back yard? Is this a serious suggestion?

Do you know that when I dig down 18 inches I hit water? :supergrin:

As for Paul: No, its no one persons fault he didn't become POTUS and its no one person's fault that Obama did. What we can say with certainty is that had enough people voted for him he would have. Also, were he President there would be no threat of an AWB nor would there be the certainty of the perpetual debt ceiling increases. But within the Republican ranks, he was soundly criticized for some things as simple and forthright as honoring the Constitution. Now, those people will have to live with their choices.

Yeah Doc, we DO get to say we told them so, because we did. There was only one true conservative on the ballot and the "conservatives" ridiculed him.

A President Paul would have had very few allies in the Congress. Government would have been paralyzed. That's a good thing.

Cavalry Doc
01-07-2013, 19:44
Dig a bunker in the back yard? Is this a serious suggestion?

Do you know that when I dig down 18 inches I hit water? :supergrin:

As for Paul: No, its no one persons fault he didn't become POTUS and its no one person's fault that Obama did. What we can say with certainty is that had enough people voted for him he would have. Also, were he President there would be no threat of an AWB nor would there be the certainty of the perpetual debt ceiling increases. But within the Republican ranks, he was soundly criticized for some things as simple and forthright as honoring the Constitution. Now, those people will have to live with their choices.

Yeah Doc, we DO get to say we told them so, because we did. There was only one true conservative on the ballot and the "conservatives" ridiculed him.

I only have one disagreement. He was a true libertarian, not a true conservative. He wasn't a terrible guy. He'd have been better than Mittens or Barry. It just was not meant to be.

When I dig 18 inches down, I hit stone. Hard stone. Adding a basement around here more than doubles the price of a home.

No, don't dig a bunker. Just get ready for a lot of rainy days, and keep a low profile. Try to look unimportant.

certifiedfunds
01-07-2013, 19:54
I only have one disagreement. He was a true libertarian, not a true conservative. He wasn't a terrible guy. He'd have been better than Mittens or Barry. It just was not meant to be.

When I dig 18 inches down, I hit stone. Hard stone. Adding a basement around here more than doubles the price of a home.

No, don't dig a bunker. Just get ready for a lot of rainy days, and keep a low profile. Try to look unimportant.

What's a basement?:supergrin: What's a rock?

You and I will disagree on that until eternity I suspect. I'll disagree this time and let it go. Libertarians are the true conservatives today.

Cavalry Doc
01-07-2013, 20:24
What's a basement?:supergrin: What's a rock?

You and I will disagree on that until eternity I suspect. I'll disagree this time and let it go. Libertarians are the true conservatives today.

No worries. :wavey:

certifiedfunds
01-07-2013, 20:59
No worries. :wavey:

No, I mean it......what's a rock?

Razorsharp
01-08-2013, 07:46
I have long thought the antis would use ammo control to get around 2A. It says we have a right to bear arms. It doesn't say they have to be loaded.

How to "they" get the idea that taxing ammunition to the degree that it becomes out of reach of the citizenry, is not infringing on the right to bear arms?

Cavalry Doc
01-08-2013, 07:50
No, I mean it......what's a rock?

Think of it as a REALLY big grain of sand. :supergrin:

QNman
01-08-2013, 14:25
No, I mean it......what's a rock?

I believe the left classifies it as a "naturally occurring assault weapon". :whistling:

Comrade Bork
01-08-2013, 16:50
You cannot make a free citizen a serf until you disarm him first.

Which is why the so-called "liberals" are constantly aghast at the guns in our collective peasant hands.

They are would be dictators and want to put all us peasants "back in our place" where we belong.

Under their whips where most of our ancestors were for centruries.

"Cold, Dead, Hands".

Molon Labe!

Comrade Bork
01-08-2013, 16:55
Once they require EVERY gun sale to go through an FFL, they can do 3 things:

1. Tighten the 4473
2. Databse
3. Tax, tax, tax every gunsale

why not tax it now on the 4473? Don't want to push more into the secondary market and off radar.

The 4473 originated with the 1968 Gun Control act.

It was THE form designed to implement complete, federal level, gun registration. Fill it out. Send it in. Keep a single, complete file of 4473s there at BATF. Voila'; registration.

In that regard, they were foiled. The pro-gunners were not able to eliminate the form, but they have to this day, kept it in the hands of the FFL and out of the hands of BATF. BATF can look at them on demand, of course.

Until the FFL gives up his FFL, that is.

Then it DOES go to BATF.

:wow:

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-31-2013, 06:27
This article is from another thread. Still can't convince myself it's not from The Onion.

http://savannahnow.com/column/2013-01-31/commentary-lets-start-taxing-guns-bullets#.UQpfM5oo6QF


The writer says:

That attachment to guns should make every gun and bullet subject to federal, state, county and municipal taxes, in addition to sales taxes. Think of the bonanza governments could reap.


The gun and bullet tax revenue could fund improved mental health services, boost the quality and reach of the Affordable Care Act...

Riverkilt
01-31-2013, 07:21
Solid points. Just would make a lot more money and help the mental health system a lot more by increasing the taxes on booze instead of taxing guns and ammo more than the sales taxes already paid....okay...some states don't have sales tax...I think....