ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags guns , taxes

Reply
Old 13th April 2018, 05:50 PM   #1
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,970
Bill to Increase Gun Taxes.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...5103/text?r=29

A bill to raise taxes on certain firearms. Guns are already some of the most heavily taxes products in the country; 11% excise tax at the moment.

Quote:
“SEC. 4181. Imposition of tax.

“There is hereby imposed upon the sale by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of the following articles a tax equivalent to the specified percent of the price for which so sold:

“(1) Articles taxable at 20 percent:
“(A) Pistols.
“(B) Revolvers.
“(C) Firearms (other than pistols and revolvers).
“(D) Any lower frame or receiver for a firearm, whether for a semiautomatic pistol, rifle, or shotgun that is designed to accommodate interchangeable upper receivers.
“(2) Articles taxable at 50 percent: Shells and cartridges.”.
I guess I can save money by purchasing the stripped receiver and then buying the rest of the parts separately. The Feds are exempt of course.

Quote:
(1) ALLOCATION

(A) Thirty-five percent of such amounts shall be available for community-oriented policing services grants for the hiring and rehiring of additional career law enforcement officers....
(B) Thirty-five percent of such amounts shall be available for the Project Safe Neighborhoods....
(C) Ten percent of such amounts shall be available for the Centers for Disease Control National Center for Injury Prevention and Control for purposes of research on gun violence and its prevention....
(D) Five percent of such amounts shall be available for the National Criminal History Improvement Program....
(E) Five percent of such amounts shall be available for the NICS Act Record Improvement Program....
(F) Five percent for the Community-Based Violence Prevention Field-Initiated Research and Evaluation Program of the Department of Justice....
(G) Five percent of such amounts shall be available for the Secretary of Education to provide directed grants and technical assistance to schools ....
Much better than being used to pay off Trump's whores.

FFL's who pay the SOT to make machine guns and other weapons will see the $1000 tax increase to $2000.

The next part really sucks.
Quote:
(1) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) of section 5811 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended—
(A) by striking “$200” and inserting “$500”; and
(B) by striking “$5” and inserting “$100”.
(2) ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION.—Section 5811 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
Hobbyists like myself will pay $500 making tax per firearm instead of the $200 we pay now. There is even a new section to allow adjustment for inflation. The $200 making tax in 1934 would be over $3500 in today's dollars.
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2018, 06:33 PM   #2
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,890
a) Any chance of it passing in a Repub controlled govt?

b) Hasn't the SCOTUS held that such attempts to infringe violate 2A? NFA '34 was specifically on guns NOT used by individual soldiers.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2018, 07:05 PM   #3
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,970
Seeing as how it is an increase in taxes and not anything really new, I don't see it challenged. I don't think it would pass (in my dreams) a Dem majority either unless the making tax was unchanged.
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2018, 07:13 PM   #4
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 11,748
I can't think of anything more tragic than the government increasing taxes on gun-owners.
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2018, 07:38 PM   #5
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 12,470
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...5103/text?r=29

A bill to raise taxes on certain firearms. Guns are already some of the most heavily taxes products in the country; 11% excise tax at the moment.

Quote:
“SEC. 4181. Imposition of tax.

“There is hereby imposed upon the sale by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of the following articles a tax equivalent to the specified percent of the price for which so sold:

“(1) Articles taxable at 20 percent:
“(A) Pistols.
“(B) Revolvers.
“(C) Firearms (other than pistols and revolvers).
“(D) Any lower frame or receiver for a firearm, whether for a semiautomatic pistol, rifle, or shotgun that is designed to accommodate interchangeable upper receivers.
“(2) Articles taxable at 50 percent: Shells and cartridges.”.
I guess I can save money by purchasing the stripped receiver and then buying the rest of the parts separately. The Feds are exempt of course.

Quote:
(1) ALLOCATION

(A) Thirty-five percent of such amounts shall be available for community-oriented policing services grants for the hiring and rehiring of additional career law enforcement officers....
(B) Thirty-five percent of such amounts shall be available for the Project Safe Neighborhoods....
(C) Ten percent of such amounts shall be available for the Centers for Disease Control National Center for Injury Prevention and Control for purposes of research on gun violence and its prevention....
(D) Five percent of such amounts shall be available for the National Criminal History Improvement Program....
(E) Five percent of such amounts shall be available for the NICS Act Record Improvement Program....
(F) Five percent for the Community-Based Violence Prevention Field-Initiated Research and Evaluation Program of the Department of Justice....
(G) Five percent of such amounts shall be available for the Secretary of Education to provide directed grants and technical assistance to schools ....
Much better than being used to pay off Trump's whores.

FFL's who pay the SOT to make machine guns and other weapons will see the $1000 tax increase to $2000.

The next part really sucks.
Quote:
(1) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) of section 5811 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended—
(A) by striking “$200” and inserting “$500”; and
(B) by striking “$5” and inserting “$100”.
(2) ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION.—Section 5811 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
Hobbyists like myself will pay $500 making tax per firearm instead of the $200 we pay now. There is even a new section to allow adjustment for inflation. The $200 making tax in 1934 would be over $3500 in today's dollars.

NIMBY!

They should increase taxes on something else instead of guns because I am a gun hobbyist.
ftfy.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by kmortis; 16th April 2018 at 09:02 AM. Reason: Edited to give context
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2018, 07:47 PM   #6
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,970
psionl0,

Perhaps you can explain how "not in my backyard" pertains to a tax that applies to nearly everyone who owns a gun. I think NIMBY does not mean what you think it means.
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2018, 07:52 PM   #7
Whip
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 717
I don't think tax gets paid on street guns. just sayin'
Whip is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2018, 08:00 PM   #8
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,970
Originally Posted by Whip View Post
I don't think tax gets paid on street guns. just sayin'
I've spent years promoting the safe, legal and responsible handling of guns. I'm not about to risk ten years/$10,000 promoting tax evasion on the making tax.
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2018, 08:01 PM   #9
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 44,765
I feel the same about gun control as I do about abortion: either make it illegal entirely or leave it alone forever, stop all these half-assed "wedge" tactics to try to get rid of something that consistently proves un-get-riddable in court. A tremendous waste of everyone's time.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 09:19 AM   #10
CaptainHowdy
Muse
 
CaptainHowdy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 749
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...5103/text?r=29

A bill to raise taxes on certain firearms. Guns are already some of the most heavily taxes products in the country; 11% excise tax at the moment.


I guess I can save money by purchasing the stripped receiver and then buying the rest of the parts separately. The Feds are exempt of course.


Much better than being used to pay off Trump's whores.

FFL's who pay the SOT to make machine guns and other weapons will see the $1000 tax increase to $2000.

The next part really sucks.


Hobbyists like myself will pay $500 making tax per firearm instead of the $200 we pay now. There is even a new section to allow adjustment for inflation. The $200 making tax in 1934 would be over $3500 in today's dollars.
There's the argument that these sort of taxes discriminate against the poor. Rich, White, heterosexual, cisgender males will still be able to acquire guns while the disadvantaged working class POC will have to go without. But that is true for all consumer goods. Besides, it's not the rich, White, heterosexual, cisgender male gunowners who are responsible for the majority of our gun related problems.
CaptainHowdy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 12:12 PM   #11
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,970
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
There's the argument that these sort of taxes discriminate against the poor.....
It could be argued that this bill is in part intended to discriminate against the middle class law abiding gun owner. How often do you hear of a person using their legally possessed NFA firearm to kill someone? Do we really need to keep increasing the taxes on firearms that are worth less than $100 in some cases?

Ranb
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 02:01 PM   #12
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 4,217
I pay taxes on my hobbies too. I say tax the hell out of it. Multiple gun makers are filing for bankruptcy and statistics show that less people are buying guns. The people that own guns are buying more of them. No one is forcing anyone to buy guns. If you don't want to pay the taxes then don't buy them. Seems easy as hell to me.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
__________________
"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 02:47 PM   #13
Parsman
Muse
 
Parsman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 501
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
It could be argued that this bill is in part intended to discriminate against the middle class law abiding gun owner. How often do you hear of a person using their legally possessed NFA firearm to kill someone? Do we really need to keep increasing the taxes on firearms that are worth less than $100 in some cases?

Ranb
Maybe I don't quite understand Ranb but I thought the killer in Vegas and Parkland were using legally purchased and held guns?
__________________
I was not; I have been; I am not; I am content - Epicurus

When you're dead you don't know that you're dead, all the pain is felt by others....................the same thing happens when you're stupid.
Parsman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 05:24 PM   #14
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,141
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
I pay taxes on my hobbies too. I say tax the hell out of it. Multiple gun makers are filing for bankruptcy and statistics show that less people are buying guns. The people that own guns are buying more of them. No one is forcing anyone to buy guns. If you don't want to pay the taxes then don't buy them. Seems easy as hell to me.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Disproportionate taxes on a civil right would seem to fall foul of the same laws that prohibit charging a fee in order to vote.
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 05:39 PM   #15
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,970
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
I pay taxes on my hobbies too..... If you don't want to pay the taxes then don't buy them. Seems easy as hell to me.
If I pay $30 to make a silencer or cut down a rifle barrel to 15" for the price of a hacksaw blade, I'm still required to write a $200 check to the BATFE for each one I make. It's easy as long as I'm willing to pry my wallet open with a crowbar.

Originally Posted by Parsman View Post
Maybe I don't quite understand Ranb but I thought the killer in Vegas and Parkland were using legally purchased and held guns?
He was. His were not NFA firearms, but ordinary rifles. I'm very certain that a higher excise tax on guns was not going to make Paddock think again about his murderous intentions that day.

My main complaint is about the tax for silencers that I make as a hobby going from $200 to $500 if the bill passes. The bill increases the special occupational tax that dealers and manufacturers pay to transfer/make machine guns, silencers, short barreled shotguns/rifles and so on. It puts a 20% tax on all guns, and raises the making tax for NFA firearms from $200 to $500 each.

Quote:
I respect that you are an engaged citizen, ceaselessly fighting to protect our most sacred hobby. The government should be taxing activities with high-cost negative externalities, not firearms. Everything is drawkcab.
I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.

Last edited by Ranb; 14th April 2018 at 05:56 PM.
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 05:42 PM   #16
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 11,748
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
I respect that you are an engaged citizen, ceaselessly fighting to protect our most sacred hobby. The government should be taxing activities with high-cost negative externalities, not firearms. Everything is drawkcab.
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 05:47 PM   #17
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,560
In general, I don't like taxes that target one, specific, sector of the economy unless it is effectively a "use tax", where using the item costs society, so you pay for it. For example, a gasoline tax is a sort of use tax. When you use the roads, they require repair. The more gasoline you use, the more you use the roads, so it makes sense to pay for that.

Guns and ammo are kind of sort of a little like that, but not much. I can't say I'm a fan of this tax proposal. You might be able to convince me that all gun users are paying the cost of gun misuse, which makes a marginal amount of sense, but it's stretching things.

Moreover, I don't like politicians who propose a tax on something because that thing has gotten a bunch of bad press lately. It's grandstanding, rather than addressing any actual problem.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 05:52 PM   #18
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,560
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Disproportionate taxes on a civil right would seem to fall foul of the same laws that prohibit charging a fee in order to vote.
One could argue that they fall afoul of the same principle, but, legally, there is a difference. The "law" that prohibits charging a fee in order to vote is actually a constitutional amendment. In other words, charging a fee in order to vote is specifically prohibited in the constitution, and has been since some time in the 1960s, I believe. Until then, it was perfectly ok for states to charge people to vote, and some places did so.

Charging a fee for bullets and guns is not specifically prohibited in the constitution, so this tax would pass constitutional muster with no issues.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 07:37 PM   #19
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 57,095
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
I respect that you are an engaged citizen, ceaselessly fighting to protect our most sacred hobby. The government should be taxing activities with high-cost negative externalities, not firearms. Everything is drawkcab.
Usually that last word is spelled sdrawkcab. I know since I first met it in an SF story and saw it a few times since. The SF story was from the late 50's or very early 60s
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 08:18 PM   #20
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,385
Grossjean v American press and Minneapolis Star tribune v. Commissioner are the cases that address taxes imposed on a civil right can be unconstitutional.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 09:29 PM   #21
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,970
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Grossjean v American press and Minneapolis Star tribune v. Commissioner are the cases that address taxes imposed on a civil right can be unconstitutional.
Well, Wikipedia says in part, "Specifically, the court found the law similar to the British Stamp Act of 1712 in that it would it suppress free speech through taxation and allowing a similar law would be against the clear Founders' Intent of the Bill of Rights."

I suppose it only applies to the 1st amendment. When it's guns then they can tax you; don't like it then you can spend ten years in prison for evading the tax. I suppose I don't dislike paying that tax enough.

In the other case the state of Minnesota demonstrated no such justification to impose a special tax on a select few newspaper publishers. I suppose those people like me are not a "select few".
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 09:37 PM   #22
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,385
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Well, Wikipedia says in part, "Specifically, the court found the law similar to the British Stamp Act of 1712 in that it would it suppress free speech through taxation and allowing a similar law would be against the clear Founders' Intent of the Bill of Rights."

I suppose it only applies to the 1st amendment. When it's guns then they can tax you; don't like it then you can spend ten years in prison for evading the tax. I suppose I don't dislike paying that tax enough.

In the other case the state of Minnesota demonstrated no such justification to impose a special tax on a select few newspaper publishers. I suppose those people like me are not a "select few".
You would have to sue and seek an injunction after it is signed into law to find out.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 01:01 PM   #23
mgidm86
Illuminator
 
mgidm86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,505
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
In general, I don't like taxes that target one, specific, sector of the economy unless it is effectively a "use tax", where using the item costs society, so you pay for it. For example, a gasoline tax is a sort of use tax. When you use the roads, they require repair. The more gasoline you use, the more you use the roads, so it makes sense to pay for that.

Guns and ammo are kind of sort of a little like that, but not much. I can't say I'm a fan of this tax proposal. You might be able to convince me that all gun users are paying the cost of gun misuse, which makes a marginal amount of sense, but it's stretching things.

Moreover, I don't like politicians who propose a tax on something because that thing has gotten a bunch of bad press lately. It's grandstanding, rather than addressing any actual problem.
I also wonder if these higher taxes will make them that much more valuable to thieves who want to steal them. Example: here in Cali, the government is taxing marijuana right back into the black market.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 01:28 PM   #24
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 29,166
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
I pay taxes on my hobbies too. I say tax the hell out of it. Multiple gun makers are filing for bankruptcy and statistics show that less people are buying guns. The people that own guns are buying more of them. No one is forcing anyone to buy guns. If you don't want to pay the taxes then don't buy them. Seems easy as hell to me.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

If you want to speak freely, then pay the taxes. Else don't speak.
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 01:58 PM   #25
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,970
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
You would have to sue and seek an injunction after it is signed into law to find out.
That might cost me more than my entire gun collection in lawyer's fees.
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 02:08 PM   #26
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,560
I suppose there might be a constitutional case against the tax if it were argued that the tax was specifically intended to make it harder to exercise a constitutional right, presumably the right to keep and bear arms.


I think, though, that the counterargument would be that the tax is designed to raise funds to cover the cost of exercising that constitutional right.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 04:34 PM   #27
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,970
Seeing as how the misuse of registered short barreled rifles/shotguns, silencers and machine guns is extremely rare I'd have to say that the $200 tax collected on each has put those who are concerned about it far in the black.
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 07:56 PM   #28
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,890
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I suppose there might be a constitutional case against the tax if it were argued that the tax was specifically intended to make it harder to exercise a constitutional right, presumably the right to keep and bear arms.


I think, though, that the counterargument would be that the tax is designed to raise funds to cover the cost of exercising that constitutional right.
But the money is not going to health care for gunshot sufferers. Or to repair the bullet holes in road side signs. It's going to anti gun bureaucracies.

And a related aside- The excise tax on guns that Ranb mentioned was put in place by gun users themselves. It's part of the Pittman-Robertson act, to fund wildlife management, so gun users can continue to hunt.

The taxes mentioned in this thread have one purpose only- to infringe on the rights of the law abiding citizen.

Go ahead, walk your way though the Bill of Rights, look for a taxable one.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 08:50 PM   #29
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,560
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
But the money is not going to health care for gunshot sufferers. Or to repair the bullet holes in road side signs. It's going to anti gun bureaucracies.

And a related aside- The excise tax on guns that Ranb mentioned was put in place by gun users themselves. It's part of the Pittman-Robertson act, to fund wildlife management, so gun users can continue to hunt.

The taxes mentioned in this thread have one purpose only- to infringe on the rights of the law abiding citizen.

Go ahead, walk your way though the Bill of Rights, look for a taxable one.
"community-oriented policing services" are "anti-gun bureaucracies"? (Repeat for all the other earmarks of the bill)


And, so, the excise tax is a demonstration that it makes sense to apply a tax on gun users to fund the things for which the gun exists. That makes sense. Just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean doesn't mean you have a right to expect others to pay for it.

For example, in order to exercise the right to peaceably assemble, you have to get parade permits and pay all sorts of costs. There was a big rally on Pennsylvania avenue recently. They wanted to use the National Mall, but they couldn't get a permit. To make that rally happen, they had to pay for all sorts of things from police services to portable toilets. Fortunately for them, a lot of people came to their aid and made donations to make it all happen. I have no idea how much it cost, or how much they paid, but it wasn't free.

I think where this proposed tax could conceivably run afoul of the constitution is if they could convince the high nine that the intended purpose was actually to restrict a constitutional right. The government can't pass laws that attempt to prevent people from exercising their rights. That's a tall order, though. You would first have to convince them that by buying guns, you were exercising a constitutional right. Based on previous Supreme Court rulings, I think that would be a tough sell for "firearms other than rifles or revolvers", or for certain types of rifles, or any sort of weapon with "interchangeable upper receivers". I think you would lose in court insisting that those were a matter of constitutional right, so you would certainly have no argument about the tax on them. For the rifles and revolvers, previous Supreme Court rulings have been consistent with the constitutional right to keep those arms, so you might convince the court that there is no cost to society for you buying your pistols, so there is no justification for a tax on them.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 15th April 2018 at 08:59 PM.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 05:56 AM   #30
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,970
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
" Based on previous Supreme Court rulings, I think that would be a tough sell for "firearms other than rifles or revolvers", or for certain types of rifles, or any sort of weapon with "interchangeable upper receivers".
If you're thinking of modular guns like the AR-15, they are just rifles and nothing more. Compared to what we had in the 1790's, they are even less advanced compared to the weapons we have now.

Quote:
I think you would lose in court insisting that those were a matter of constitutional right, so you would certainly have no argument about the tax on them. For the rifles and revolvers, previous Supreme Court rulings have been consistent with the constitutional right to keep those arms, so you might convince the court that there is no cost to society for you buying your pistols, so there is no justification for a tax on them.
I wonder what they would think of a $500 flat tax?
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 01:01 PM   #31
mgidm86
Illuminator
 
mgidm86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,505
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Seeing as how the misuse of registered short barreled rifles/shotguns, silencers and machine guns is extremely rare I'd have to say that the $200 tax collected on each has put those who are concerned about it far in the black.
These taxes sound prohibitively high. Did guns suddenly become that much more expensive for society to have around? I thought gun violence was dropping? I'm sure their is no political motivation behind this whatsoever

I'm not a gun enthusiast though I do own one, but I find myself constantly arguing for gun rights due to the volume of idiocy with most proposed gun control legislation.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 04:22 PM   #32
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,560
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I wonder what they would think of a $500 flat tax?
The US has a weird legal system that requires us to pass a law and then wait a few year to find out whether that law is valid, and when we do, it's a bit of a mystery, and depends significantly on when certain old people retire or die. In other words, it's hard to predict the Supreme Court.

However, I would think that a $500 tax on a pistol would be seen as prohibitively high, and may very well be overturned on constitutional grounds, unless Thomas dies before Ginsburg.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 04:34 PM   #33
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,560
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
If you're thinking of modular guns like the AR-15, they are just rifles and nothing more. Compared to what we had in the 1790's, they are even less advanced compared to the weapons we have now.
Let me try to be more clear in my discussion of the constitutionality of the tax. There is no constitutional right to own an assault rifle, therefore a tax on those weapons could not be challenged on constitutional grounds. On the other hand, a tax on every single gun may very well be considered overly broad, because a sufficiently high tax would probably be seen as deliberately restricting a constitutional right.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 04:48 PM   #34
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,970
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
....However, I would think that a $500 tax on a pistol would be seen as prohibitively high, and may very well be overturned on constitutional grounds, unless Thomas dies before Ginsburg.
The proposed $500 tax (it is currently only $200) is only for making an NFA firearm like a silencer, SBR or machine gun. They're just wanting to raise it; it's been $200 since 1934.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Let me try to be more clear in my discussion of the constitutionality of the tax. There is no constitutional right to own an assault rifle, therefore a tax on those weapons could not be challenged on constitutional grounds. On the other hand, a tax on every single gun may very well be considered overly broad, because a sufficiently high tax would probably be seen as deliberately restricting a constitutional right.
I don't see why the supreme court or any other court would differentiate between a semi-auto rifle or a single shot shotgun when it comes to 2nd amendment rights. A gun is a gun. Either you have the right to own one or not.

This is different than putting restrictions on certain kinds of guns, that has been going on for a couple of centuries.

Last edited by Ranb; 16th April 2018 at 04:52 PM.
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 05:14 PM   #35
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,560
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I don't see why the supreme court or any other court would differentiate between a semi-auto rifle or a single shot shotgun when it comes to 2nd amendment rights. A gun is a gun. Either you have the right to own one or not.
The constitution doesn't mention guns, it only mentions arms.

Surely you wouldn't say "Arms are arms. Either you have the right to own arms, or you do not." I think you would find yourself in very small company if you tried to insist that the constitution granted American citizens the right to own any and all weapons they choose.

And if they do not have the right to own any weapon that they choose, why would they have the right to own any sort of gun that they choose?
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:02 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.