View Full Version : Tax our Ammo out of existence
October 19, 2008, 05:35 PM
I think they will tax our ammo out of existence. What do you think??? It would dry up all ammo supplies. Even if you had guns they would be useless. Please tell me what you think?? Thanks Patrick
October 19, 2008, 06:09 PM
Who do you mean by 'they'?
I don't see taxes as much of a threat as I do outlawing lead bullets, micro engraving, etc.
October 19, 2008, 06:29 PM
Yet another good reason to reload. I've been buying lead, powder and primers for two years.
Buy two. Stash one, use one. Repeat.
October 19, 2008, 06:47 PM
Well load up on some bricks of known good .22 ammo. Relatively cheap, compared to centerfire, useful for quite a few things, and does not take up very much space for a few thousand rounds. I would have expected rimfire to be less expensive than it is, as alot of brands are now made in Mexico. Guess that shows that the labor savings is not trickling down or the cost of materials dwarfs the labor costs?
October 19, 2008, 07:15 PM
I think that you are looking for this: http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Healey1.htm
The above link discusses strategies that the gun grabbers could employ to ban firearm use through ammo regulation. 10 years isn't that long ago people WAKE UP!
A a snippit from the review:
I. Why Ammunition Control?
The historical tendency to give ammunition short shrift in gun legislation is particularly striking in light of the advantages to be gained from regulating bullets.  As Senator Kerry has noted: "[R]egulating only weapons is naive."  Keeping the focus on weapons and away from ammunition has been a misguided strategy for several reasons but generally because regulating ammunition offers the possibility for real change.
Senator Moynihan has said: "[L]ike nuclear waste, guns remain active for centuries. With minimum care, they do not deteriorate."  Ammunition has a much shorter "shelf life."  [Page 6]
Given that guns do not deteriorate, the other alternatives to reducing the supply that is alredy in public hands are to induce people to surrender their firearms or to confiscate the firearms. Confiscating guns would be practically impossible and nearly as difficult politically.  Even if a million handguns were confiscated every year, there would still be a net gain of nearly three million per year, given the current rate of almost four million new handguns entering the market annually.  Voluntary gun buy-backs and the like offer a similarly low possibility of putting a dent in the number of guns in circulation. Voluntary gun returns and buybacks have garnered a great deal of attention but have only marginal efficacy.  There are more than 200 million guns in circulation,  and as Senator Moynihan has noted: "The weapons are there and they will not go away." 
The focus therefore turns to ammunition for several reasons. First of all, a higher proportion of ammunition than of guns enters the market every year. Senator Moynihan estimates that there are 7.5 billion rounds of ammunition in private hands, about a four-year supply, indicating that roughly a quarter of this total is replenished every year.  The higher proportion of new ammunition use, as well as the differences in useful life, leads to the conclusion that a change in ammunition policy will have a more tangible and immediate effect than will new gun-related laws.  Also, bullets and or cartridges are often found at the scene [Page 7] of the crime, whereas guns usually are not, making ammunition an excellent source of forensic evidence, and one that can be used more advantageously than at present.  The impossibility of dealing with the massive amount of guns already in private hands, the possibility of affecting real change sooner, and the forensic potential of spent ammunition all point toward ammunition control as a viable and productive alternative to more gun control.
A few caveats should be noted before progressing into the proposals for bullet regulation. First, this scheme relates to federal laws, unless otherwise noted. Second, it refers to all ammunition, not just that for handguns. Although handguns cause a significant portion of human injuries and fatalities  and are involved in the majority of violent crimes,  regulating only handguns could cause people to substitute with long guns, which tend to be more destructive than handguns, when committing crimes. 
This Article also looks at reform through the lens of legislation, as opposed to court decisions, and specifically in terms of federal legislation.  One of the main problems with this country's patchwork system of gun control laws is migration.  For [Page 8] instance, guns flow from states like Virginia and Florida, where gun control is relatively lax, into strictly controlled jurisdictions like New York and Washington, D.C.  Writing local legislation in this field is like squeezing a water-filled balloon. The guns and ammunition simply flow in from elsewhere when the pressure becomes too tight in a particular area of the country. 
Recently ammunition control has begun to receive attention, particularly at the federal and local levels. Nationally, Senator Moynihan and Congressperson Schumer are among the leaders who sponsor various types of ammunition control legislation.  Municipalities also have grown concerned with bullet control and have begun to pass such laws.  Legislators at various levels of government are trying to shore up the levee against the river of [Page 9] violence, and the legislative scheme of bullet control proposed in this Article reflects an effort to fill more of the gaps in the current gun control system.
October 19, 2008, 08:15 PM
Every Year for at least 10 years some lefty introduces a bill to tax ammo at 100% so far it has not even made it out of committee.
October 19, 2008, 09:28 PM
I don't think they'll do it with taxes. As pointed out it's been difficult to get ammo tax laws passed.
On the other hand the strategy of making ammunition much more expensive by outlawing inexpensive ingredients and forcing the use of more expensive, less suitable ingredients has been pretty successful.
Expect a concerted push to ban lead in ammunition. Lead-free ammunition is more expensive, and it is my understanding that ammunition with lead-free primers has shorter shelf-life.
And who can object to banning lead? It's for the ducks. It's for the condors. It's for the CHILDREN...
October 20, 2008, 10:46 AM
Our Federal Government has put us too far in debt. They are going to be looking for anything they can get. Taxing ammo is an easy way to get some money. The problem is the federal taxes are suppose to go to wildlife or outdoor style recreations. But they have been stealing out of this fund for years, so they will not stop now.
The next lawmakers in control will be looking for any place they can to make an additional buck. Ammunition could easily be in their sights. Just because it did not come out of committee before, means nothing in the futre.
I have also been stocking up on components. I have about 600# of WW right now that needs smelted.
Where we are truly vulnerable is PRIMER'S. Tom.
October 20, 2008, 11:16 AM
My question is ... how long can ammo last when properly stored in a cool dry location. The reason I ask is because I plan on having invested enough in Ammo that it won't matter what they do in my lifetime short of confiscation. :confused:
October 20, 2008, 11:39 AM
Plenty of threads on that question--do a search.
Short answer--plenty of people have shot ammo that is 50, 60 years old, and older.
October 20, 2008, 11:39 AM
Indefinitely. Inspect for corrosion before using.
October 20, 2008, 11:43 AM
Sounds good to me. That's what I thought! :)
October 20, 2008, 11:47 AM
Modern non-lead safe ammo if properly stored will last a lifetime. I've fired 60 year old ammo that wasn't always properly stored and I didn't have a single misfire or failure.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.