|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
August 26, 2013, 05:27 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Who didn't see this coming?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...with-new-bill/
Representatives Pascrell (NJ) and Davis (IL) have introduced a bill to impose massively increased tax rates on firearms and ammunition purchases, as well as NFA transfer fees (from $200 to $500) and, if the article is correct, a new $100 fee on non-NFA transfers. This is obviously not going to make it out of the House this session, but does reveal their map for the future should the gun-grabbers achieve a majority in the House in the 2014 elections. |
August 26, 2013, 05:35 PM | #2 |
Member
Join Date: January 28, 2005
Posts: 39
|
H.R. 3018: Gun Violence Prevention and Safe Communities Act of 2013
U.S. Representatives William Pascrell, D-N.J., and Danny Davis, D-Ill. are sponsoring a new House bill entitled "Gun Violence Prevention and Safe Communities Act of 2013" (H.R. 3018).
The full text of the bill may be viewed here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr3018/text The bill includes the following provisions:
Initial support for this bill appears weak. Despite this, it bears watching. What do you all think about the chances of this bill or a modified version of it passing? |
August 26, 2013, 06:02 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
|
0% chance passing as is. Not much in a similar form.
This is when the NRA is at its best. Not surprising considering where the sponsors are from.
__________________
Cave illos in guns et backhoes |
August 26, 2013, 06:15 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 12, 2006
Location: NKY
Posts: 12,463
|
Agree. This won't pass as it is essentially a poll tax designed to keep guns out of the hands of the poor.
__________________
"He who laughs last, laughs dead." Homer Simpson Last edited by Kreyzhorse; August 26, 2013 at 06:20 PM. |
August 26, 2013, 06:18 PM | #5 |
Member
Join Date: July 13, 2011
Location: MD *gah*
Posts: 57
|
Nano... the last item, concerning handgun rounds "chambered for cartridges commonly considered rifle rounds..." sounds similar to a CA case, the one that knocked down AB962 for vagueness. I think it is Parker v California, number 22 on Al's Current 2A Cases page 1. The concept here is no less vague if you ask me. I agree with TXAZ that this probably won't get any real traction. Just grandstanding for constituents.
|
August 26, 2013, 07:55 PM | #6 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Let's remember that anyone in Congress can propose a bill to do anything at pretty much any time. No sense in worrying at every one.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
August 26, 2013, 09:44 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
No, it's not going to pass. I'll just observe, though, that the bill blatantly discriminates against those with fewer financial resources. I might cut back in how much I shoot but it won't keep me from owning firearms. However, it would put gun ownership out of reach for some people who struggle to pay the rent. That is exactly the aim behind some of the old "Saturday night special" laws. In other words, it's about controlling the "poor ignorant masses" who no doubt elected these legislators to begin with.
|
August 27, 2013, 08:23 AM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
Edit To Add: And truth be told, IF it did go anywhere, it's more likely to get all excise on firearms thrown out. Pittman-Robertson passed before the RKBA was recognized as an individual right. And not very many of us on this side of the debate want to challenge it right now. First, it would be very hard to do so from the high road. Second, it's a pretty decent talking point for us- i.e.How much money have us gun loving nut jobs put into the environment. However, were it to be increased, that would probably make others, maybe even Gura squeal enough to challenge P-R in the courts. Last edited by JimDandy; August 27, 2013 at 08:55 AM. |
|
August 27, 2013, 09:37 AM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
|
August 27, 2013, 12:34 PM | #10 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I don't think that any such challenge would be the Pittman-Robertson taxes, as originally passed. The challenge would be to the legislation that increased the taxes for reasons other than what Pittman-Robertson was originally set up for.
So that the increased amount of taxation (the 9% increase in firearms and the 39% increase in ammo) would not go to the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Act but would be divided in the following manner:
Nowhere in the Act (as currently applied) are US and State governments exempted from the excise tax (while this is true of the Act itself, there may be such exemptions under the referenced IRS codes that I have not found). That would change as this new legislation explicitly exempts the US Government (and all of its agencies) from the burden of paying the excise tax. All of this would essentially gut the purpose of the excise tax, as laid out in 16 USC § 669. |
|
|