The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 29, 2020, 08:56 AM   #1
RoyceP
Member
 
Join Date: February 4, 2020
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 41
H.R. 5717 would implement a 30% tax on all gun sales and 50% tax on all ammunition sales

Section 803 of Johnson’s H.R. 5717 details the changes that would be made to taxes on firearms and other related items.

It would make pistols, revolvers and other firearms taxable at 30%. Shells and cartridges would be taxable at 50%.

This is illegal legislation IMHO.

Link:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...RuxealYb5ty2hQ
RoyceP is offline  
Old May 29, 2020, 10:48 AM   #2
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,955
Johnson and his co-signers are pandering to their anti-gun base. H. R. 5717 is going nowhere. It will disappear with the new session of congress.
thallub is offline  
Old May 29, 2020, 11:20 AM   #3
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 14,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoyceP
This is illegal legislation IMHO.
"Illegal" in what way?

Do you mean unconstitutional?
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old May 29, 2020, 12:06 PM   #4
RoyceP
Member
 
Join Date: February 4, 2020
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca View Post
"Illegal" in what way?

Do you mean unconstitutional?
Yes.
RoyceP is offline  
Old May 29, 2020, 02:51 PM   #5
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 21,563
It's not unconstitutional, until it becomes a LAW. Then it can be ruled on. Until then, its just an idea, a proposal, with no force of law, or anything else. It's not worth the paper its printed on, unless you think it is.

Tons of stupid stuff are proposed every session. About everything. The point to the legislative committees is to weed out the worst of it, and toss those in the trash. Sometimes, they do a better job than others...

Almost every session, someone proposes repealing the 2nd Amendment. Those get shot down pretty quick, because even those people who would like to see the 2nd Amendment go away recognize that a bill in the legislature is not the lawful way to do it.

Some time back, there was a proposal to tax our incomes, not on what we made but what we should be making.

They seriously proposed that, if you had a college degree you should be making X (at the least) and they would tax you on "X" even if you made less. The same bill (or a companion) would have also taxed you (if you had property you could rent) on what that rental property should bring in, according to their charts and graphs, whether it actually brought in that much or even if you didn't rent it at all. Their "wisdom" said you should be renting it, and it should generate "x" amount of income, so they wanted to tax us on that amount of income, whether we actually had it, or not!!!!

Needless to say, that got shot down in a hurry, but that didn't stop some folks from proposing it.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old May 29, 2020, 06:10 PM   #6
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 4,591
I'm sure this has been mentioned on this site before but isn't there ALREADY a tax on ammunition for "wildlife and environmental" type things???
DaleA is offline  
Old May 30, 2020, 12:02 AM   #7
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 21,563
Quote:
isn't there ALREADY a tax on ammunition for "wildlife and environmental" type things???
That would be the Pittman-Robertson act of 1937.

It imposes an 11% tax on guns and ammo (and I think it was later expanded to cover archery and fishing equipment).

The tax is not added to the retail price, it is already figured in as part of the retail price. The money does not go to the Treasury, it goes to the Secretary of the Interior, who, by law, spends it on conservation work, wildlife preservation and such things.

its a good law, and a fair tax, was supported by the sportsmen of the time, and is still supported by conservationists today.

Unlike the proposed tax in HR 5717 it is not a "punishment" tax intended to discourage purchase of guns and ammo. There's a huge difference there.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old May 30, 2020, 04:00 AM   #8
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 4,591
Thanks for providing details on the tax that I was just too lazy (and pressed for time) to look up myself.

Again, thanks.
DaleA is offline  
Old June 1, 2020, 07:33 AM   #9
FlyFish
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 20, 2009
Location: Overlooking the Baker River Valley
Posts: 1,691
Quote:
That would be the Pittman-Robertson act of 1937.

It imposes an 11% tax on guns and ammo (and I think it was later expanded to cover archery and fishing equipment).
Yes, Pittman-Roberston originally just covered long guns and ammo, then was expanded to include handguns and archery equipment in the 1970s. The similar law for fishing equipment and sportfish restoration is Dingell-Johnson, passed in 1950. Good laws, both of them.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member
NRA Certified Pistol Instructor, Range Safety Officer
SASS #84900
Pemigewasset Valley Fish & Game Club
FlyFish is offline  
Old June 1, 2020, 06:15 PM   #10
peacefulgary
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 651
Such taxes are not only anti 2nd Amendment they are attacks on the poor.

Taxes like these are a huge determent for those of modest income.
It makes it much harder for a single mother, who's a waitress, to afford home protection and self defense firearms and ammo.

Of course the rich have ALWAYS tried to disarm the poor.
peacefulgary is offline  
Old July 1, 2020, 03:15 AM   #11
silvermane_1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: Burien,WA
Posts: 878
Bring back the the poll tax, because if you tax guns, you can tax the voting polls.
__________________
Rugers:SR1911 CMD,MK 3 .22lr 6",Sec. Six '76 liberty .357 4",SRH .480 Ruger 7.5",Mini-14 188 5.56/.233 18.5", Marlins: 795 .22lr 16.5",30aw 30-30 20",Mossberg:Mav. 88 Tact. 12 ga, 18.5",ATR 100 .270 Win. 22",S&W:SW9VE
9mm 4",Springfield:XD .357sig 4", AKs:CAI PSL-54C, WASR 10/63, WW74,SLR-106c
silvermane_1 is offline  
Old July 1, 2020, 11:16 PM   #12
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 21,563
Many years ago, I believe there was a case about taxing printer's ink (used by newspapers) that got shot down because it was deemed an infringement of the First Amendment,

I'm sure you could look it up, I no longer remember the name. Pretty sure the same principle holds, or should.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old July 2, 2020, 02:37 AM   #13
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,625
It was Minneapolis Star & Tribune Company v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 2, 2020, 07:54 AM   #14
TomNJVA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 22, 2014
Location: Floyd, VA
Posts: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
Many years ago, I believe there was a case about taxing printer's ink (used by newspapers) that got shot down because it was deemed an infringement of the First Amendment
That's because the courts respect the first amendment. The courts treat the second amendment as a second class amendment.
__________________
In NJ, the bad guys are armed and the households are alarmed. In VA, the households are armed and the bad guys are alarmed.
TomNJVA is offline  
Old July 5, 2020, 03:40 AM   #15
silvermane_1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: Burien,WA
Posts: 878
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomNJVA View Post
That's because the courts respect the first amendment. The courts treat the second amendment as a second class amendment.
If that was true there wouldn't be any laws against "hate speech" there TomNJVA, the courts only respect laws/amendments that empower the 'State'.
__________________
Rugers:SR1911 CMD,MK 3 .22lr 6",Sec. Six '76 liberty .357 4",SRH .480 Ruger 7.5",Mini-14 188 5.56/.233 18.5", Marlins: 795 .22lr 16.5",30aw 30-30 20",Mossberg:Mav. 88 Tact. 12 ga, 18.5",ATR 100 .270 Win. 22",S&W:SW9VE
9mm 4",Springfield:XD .357sig 4", AKs:CAI PSL-54C, WASR 10/63, WW74,SLR-106c
silvermane_1 is offline  
Old July 5, 2020, 01:10 PM   #16
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 4,591
Quote:
If that was true there wouldn't be any laws against "hate speech"
Well what you have to realize (sarcasm on) is there is a hierarchical order to enforcing laws.

I'm working on a smart phone app so people can have this reference at their finger tips.

As an example of what I am talking about is that here in Minnesota it is illegal to block highways or to block our toy train light rail system.
BUT
If you're blocking the highway for a GOOD CAUSE like SOCIAL JUSTICE the app would tell you that you're okay.
BUT
It also depends on what your blocking the roads affect. The app has to dig deeper to give you your answer.
If you're just blocking regular traffic, (like commuters, police, fire and ambulances) you're okay.
BUT
If you're blocking traffic to a big event then the app has to dig deeper yet.
If you're blocking traffic to a Minnesota Vikings football game you're okay. (But you're not going to win many folk to your side.)
BUT
If you're blocking traffic to the Twin Cities Marathon (an event held dear by the right (or would it be left?) thinking people that run our cities then the law will be enforced and you will suffer the legal penalties. (sarcasm off).
DaleA is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 -5. The time now is 11:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07842 seconds with 10 queries