H.R. 5103 - Guns & Ammo Taxes

[RustedBeef]

New bill to add 20% tax on guns and a 50% tax on ammo... but it doesn't apply to Daddy Gubment. Kinda like them "GUBMENT ONLY" High cap mags the kids couldn't play with.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5103?r=29
Introduced in House (02/27/2018)
Gun Violence Prevention and Safe Communities Act of 2018

This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code, with respect to the excise tax on the sale of firearms by manufacturers, producers, or importers, to: (1) increase the rate of such tax to 20% on pistols, revolvers, and other firearms and on any lower frame or receiver for a firearm; and (2) impose a 50% tax on shells and cartridges. The bill exempts any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States from such tax.

The bill allocates revenues from the increased excise tax under this bill for law enforcement and public safety grant programs, including programs for research on gun violence and its prevention.

The bill: (1) increases the occupational tax on importers, manufacturers, and dealers in firearms and the transfer tax on firearms; and (2) modifies the definition of "firearm" for excise tax purposes to include a semiautomatic pistol chambered for cartridges and configured with receivers commonly associated with rifles and capable of accepting detachable magazines.

 

[bigchuck83]

Was reading about this Bill a little earlier today, what a crapfest it is. Guess I'll buy another brick of 22 today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rod Snell]

Cosponsor Date Cosponsored
Rep. Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [D-NJ-9]* 02/27/2018
Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [D-GA-4]* 02/27/2018
Rep. Kelly, Robin L. [D-IL-2]* 02/27/2018
Rep. Langevin, James R. [D-RI-2]* 02/27/2018
Rep. Blumenauer, Earl [D-OR-3]* 02/27/2018
Rep. Bass, Karen [D-CA-37]* 02/27/2018
Rep. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]* 02/27/2018
Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9]* 02/27/2018
Rep. Lynch, Stephen F. [D-MA-8]* 02/27/2018
Rep. Raskin, Jamie [D-MD-8] 03/13/2018
Rep. DeSaulnier, Mark [D-CA-11] 03/13/2018
Rep. Lee, Barbara [D-CA-13] 03/13/2018

 

[Fredkrueger100]

I keep telling everyone that we are gonna continue to see this crap. The gun grabbers know that Trump is on their side now so they are going for broke. But even before they were still working to rid the country of the 2A. And for the millionth time the government is gonna continue to fight to repeal the 2A or restrict it so bad that it will be useless. The bump stock ruling just opens the door for the government to change whatever gun law they want. Because that is what they are doing with the BS ruling. They repeatedly said that they didn’t convert a semi auto into a machine gun. The government has to be stopped people.

 

[Pokinfun]

how is a tax going to prevent violence? I know at one point in our history taxes caused violence.

 

[Dave70968]

This is actually kind of fascinating, and could be a blessing for us, in a "thin end of the wedge" kind of way.

With the Second Amendment now held to protect an individual, not collective, right, it enjoys much the same status as the First. Granted, the level of scrutiny hasn't been established, but it's still there.

There's a landmark First Amendment case called Minneapolis Star Tribune Company v. Commissioner, 460 U.S. 575 (1983), that concerned a tax affecting the exercise of the right. Briefly, Minnesota established a special use tax on paper and ink (it also exempted the first $100,000 spent on same, so it only affected the largest publication houses). The court held:

There is substantial evidence that differential taxation of the press would have troubled the Framers of the First Amendment.

The role of the press in mobilizing sentiment in favor of independence was critical to the Revolution. When the Constitution was proposed without an explicit guarantee of freedom of the press, the Antifederalists objected. Proponents of the Constitution, relying on the principle of enumerated powers, responded that such a guarantee was unnecessary because the Constitution granted Congress no power to control the press. The remarks of Richard Henry Lee are typical of the rejoinders of the Antifederalists:

"I confess I do not see in what cases the congress can, with any pretence of right, make a law to suppress the freedom of the press; though I am not clear, that congress is restrained from laying any duties whatever on printing, and from laying duties particularly heavy on certain pieces printed." R. Lee, Observation Leading to a Fair Examination of the System of Government, Letter IV, reprinted in 1 B. Schwartz, The Bill of Rights: A Documentary History 466, 474 (1971).

...

The fears of the Antifederalists were well-founded. A power to tax differentially, as opposed to a power to tax generally, gives a government a powerful weapon against the taxpayer selected. When the State imposes a generally applicable tax, there is little cause for concern. We need not fear that a government will destroy a selected group of taxpayers by burdensome taxation if it must impose the same burden on the rest of its constituency. See Railway Express Agency v. New York, 336 U.S. 106, 112-113, 69 S.Ct. 463, 467, 93 L.Ed. 533 (1949) (Jackson, J., concurring). When the State singles out the press, though, the political constraints that prevent a legislature from passing crippling taxes of general applicability are weakened, and the threat of burdensome taxes becomes acute. That threat can operate as effectively as a censor to check critical comment by the press, undercutting the basic assumption of our political system that the press will often serve as an important restraint on government. ...

...

Further, differential treatment, unless justified by some special characteristic of the press, suggests that the goal of the regulation is not unrelated to suppression of expression, and such a goal is presumptively unconstitutional. See, e.g., Police Department of the City of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95-96, 92 S.Ct. 2286, 2289-90, 33 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972); cf. Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45, 102 S.Ct. 1523, 71 L.Ed.2d 732 (1982) (First Amendment has its "fullest and most urgent" application in the case of regulation of the content of political speech). Differential taxation of the press, then, places such a burden on the interests protected by the First Amendment that we cannot countenance such treatment unless the State asserts a counterbalancing interest of compelling importance that it cannot achieve without differential taxation.

[boldface mine]​

The language about a "counterbalancing interest of compelling importance" is a bit of a fly in the ointment. The obvious answer is that preventing violence is a compelling interest, and it's a point that would be well-taken; still, I'm not sure it rises to the level justifying allowing the disproportionate taxation. Given the rhetoric surrounding the enactment of the tax (which we've seen can be admissible--just look at the cases surrounding Trump's travel ban), it's obvious purpose is the restriction of the right. This is especially notable at the federal level, which is generally not concerned with such matters (murder is generally a state-level crime, not federal; McVeigh got the needle for only twenty counts, many related to terrorism and weapons, not the people he killed). Moreover, there's specific precedent prior precedent (cited in Minneapolis Star-Tribune) in McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819) holding that "the power [of the states] to tax involves the power to destroy," so the principle established at the federal level would flow down to state-level taxation as well.

So...why a blessing? Well, initially, it's a double-edged sword. Nobody has seriously challenged the Pittman-Robertson tax (to the best of my knowledge), so that could work against us; on the other hand, that tax is distinguishable as applying to a wide variety of sporting goods, and being dedicated to their preservation (a sizable portion of Wildlife Department funds comes from fed.gov Pittman-Robertson receipts). The blessing, though, is that if this tax is shot down (pun fully intended), Pittman-Robertson is on the table. I like its effects, but it needs to go on principle. But that's just the appetizer; the main course is...the NFA. Imagine, for a moment, if we could get the transfer tax eliminated. It's a start--it doesn't necessarily destroy the regulation scheme, just the tax--but imagine if NFA items could be made and sold tax-free. What might that kick off? Suppressors become a whole lot cheaper, for one thing.

I know I'm dreaming big here (I've been kicking this idea over for at least six years now), but then, so did Robert Levy...and his big dream ended up being known as Heller.

 

[RustedBeef]

how is a tax going to prevent violence? I know at one point in our history taxes caused violence.

Easy: Criminals are poor, so making it more expensive to get and and shoot guns leads to less guns in their hands AND less bullets hitting kids. Next is a tax hike on crowbars to solve that other, not so obvious, problem. It's airtight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dennishoddy]

how is a tax going to prevent violence? I know at one point in our history taxes caused violence.

It's not a short term goal. When I was in Italy on the company dime for a month at a school, I had intentions of buying a Perazzi trap gun as the factory was just down the street thinking I could get it cheaper. Well, I was totally wrong. It was double the price of the same gun in the USA. Reason? Taxes. As I was told by the translator, guns an ammo are highly taxed in Italy as a means of taking them out of the hands of the masses. It's a long term method of gun control, with the guns maybe still being owned, but the ammo is too expensive to buy for the common person.
Its another trap by the gun grabbers.
Criminals have no issue stealing guns and ammo.

 

[RustedBeef]

It's not a short term goal. When I was in Italy on the company dime for a month at a school, I had intentions of buying a Perazzi trap gun as the factory was just down the street thinking I could get it cheaper. Well, I was totally wrong. It was double the price of the same gun in the USA. Reason? Taxes. As I was told by the translator, guns an ammo are highly taxed in Italy as a means of taking them out of the hands of the masses. It's a long term method of gun control, with the guns maybe still being owned, but the ammo is too expensive to buy for the common person.
Its another trap by the gun grabbers.
Criminals have no issue stealing guns and ammo.

Did their govt/police have to play by the same rules?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dennishoddy]

Did their govt/police have to play by the same rules?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course not. That's the long term plan with higher taxes.