Brady Campaign... I know, I know...

LordTio3 · April 21, 2010, 10:36 AM

I recently read an article on the current motives of the Brady Campaign, which I would be willing to bet well-over 90% of you know of and have an opinion on. The article was about an interview with one of their DC lobyists who, in a nutshell, stated that since they have failed to make significant headway in constraining gun control laws lately, they're going to soon be focusing on lobbying for drastic increases in taxes on ammunition to civilians to record-high levels. This would, they hope, cause enthusiasts or those who carry weapons as civilians to simply be unable to afford to do it, resulting in a decrease in the number of people participating in exercising their rights as citizens.

I know I'm not the only one who think that the Brady Campaign is headed by some of the most prejudiced and short-sided people in politics today, but this is an all-time winner.

Shooters and gun enthusiasts will not ever stop being shooters and gun enthusiasts. This is the point that they cannot understand. As a result of this premise, increasing taxes on ammunition and decreasing the availability of it to us is going to accomplish only ONE thing...

People aren't going to shoot as much.

Practice, recreation, hunting, tactical training, etc... People will engage in these less. The number of people that will abstain from carrying weapons because of this issue alone will be minimally affected. The only real result is that we're going to have shooters, sheepdogs, and responsible citizens who aren't well-trained with their weapons because they can't afford to practice.
I.E... more collateral damage in shootings, less situational training, and more bullets per engagement. -(I realize this is a bit extreme.)

I also realize this is a bit more of a rant/blog than a thread in a forum, but I am curious to know what other shooters besides me think about this, Handgun Carriers in particular because I believe it will affect us most of all... if they actually get these things pushed through.

Floodgates- [open]
~LT

ScottRiqui · April 21, 2010, 10:52 AM

Name of the lobbyist and reference to the interview you're referring to? I'm a little skeptical that anyone working for the Brady campaign in any sort of official capacity would admit to intending to tax ammunition to the point of it being too expensive to carry.

And realistically, how much would the tax have to be in order for us not to at least be able to fill our carry guns? Granted, they could force us to cut back on practice ammo, but even at $10/round, I'd still buy enough to carry.

Glenn E. Meyer · April 21, 2010, 11:07 AM

This has been suggested before as a rumor to get the choir riled up.

With the current political environment, there is no chance for this to happen.

Some groups might try to get you excited to get your money.

So, if the OP can post a legit source - we might let this run.

**Mike Irwin** · April 21, 2010, 11:46 AM

"they're going to soon be focusing on lobbying for drastic increases in taxes on ammunition to civilians to record-high levels"

It's these kinds of claims that normally lead to us asking for the specific article/source in which such a statement was made so that we can examine it for ourselves.

Oops, I see that Glenn has beaten me to this particular punch.

However, I'm going to shut this down for the time being so that it doesn't get cluttered with a lot of speculative discussion/debate.

Once you have located the source of said comment, sent either Glenn or me a private message asking us to open the thread so that you can supply the requested information.

Lacking that, the thread will stay closed.

TSR80 · April 21, 2010, 11:46 AM

Anything is possible.

Look at the NFA... in the 1930s $200 was a chunk of change to get your tax stamp. The common gun owner was priced out, the Fed knew this and what happened? Well, almost no one has NFA guns now and the few that are left are insane in price. Sure, $200 doesn't sound like a lot now but back then when you can buy a new freakin' car for $500 and the average family is bringing home 5-6k a year it's a lot of coin.

April 21, 2010, 10:36 AM	#1
LordTio3 Senior Member Join Date: March 5, 2010 Location: Bloomington, Indiana Posts: 850	Brady Campaign... I know, I know... I recently read an article on the current motives of the Brady Campaign, which I would be willing to bet well-over 90% of you know of and have an opinion on. The article was about an interview with one of their DC lobyists who, in a nutshell, stated that since they have failed to make significant headway in constraining gun control laws lately, they're going to soon be focusing on lobbying for drastic increases in taxes on ammunition to civilians to record-high levels. This would, they hope, cause enthusiasts or those who carry weapons as civilians to simply be unable to afford to do it, resulting in a decrease in the number of people participating in exercising their rights as citizens. I know I'm not the only one who think that the Brady Campaign is headed by some of the most prejudiced and short-sided people in politics today, but this is an all-time winner. Shooters and gun enthusiasts will not ever stop being shooters and gun enthusiasts. This is the point that they cannot understand. As a result of this premise, increasing taxes on ammunition and decreasing the availability of it to us is going to accomplish only ONE thing... People aren't going to shoot as much. Practice, recreation, hunting, tactical training, etc... People will engage in these less. The number of people that will abstain from carrying weapons because of this issue alone will be minimally affected. The only real result is that we're going to have shooters, sheepdogs, and responsible citizens who aren't well-trained with their weapons because they can't afford to practice. I.E... more collateral damage in shootings, less situational training, and more bullets per engagement. -(I realize this is a bit extreme.) I also realize this is a bit more of a rant/blog than a thread in a forum, but I am curious to know what other shooters besides me think about this, Handgun Carriers in particular because I believe it will affect us most of all... if they actually get these things pushed through. Floodgates- [open] ~LT

April 21, 2010, 11:07 AM	#3
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	This has been suggested before as a rumor to get the choir riled up. With the current political environment, there is no chance for this to happen. Some groups might try to get you excited to get your money. So, if the OP can post a legit source - we might let this run. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

April 21, 2010, 11:46 AM	#4
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,390	"they're going to soon be focusing on lobbying for drastic increases in taxes on ammunition to civilians to record-high levels" It's these kinds of claims that normally lead to us asking for the specific article/source in which such a statement was made so that we can examine it for ourselves. Oops, I see that Glenn has beaten me to this particular punch. However, I'm going to shut this down for the time being so that it doesn't get cluttered with a lot of speculative discussion/debate. Once you have located the source of said comment, sent either Glenn or me a private message asking us to open the thread so that you can supply the requested information. Lacking that, the thread will stay closed. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

April 21, 2010, 11:46 AM	#5
TSR80 Member Join Date: February 18, 2010 Posts: 65	Anything is possible. Look at the NFA... in the 1930s $200 was a chunk of change to get your tax stamp. The common gun owner was priced out, the Fed knew this and what happened? Well, almost no one has NFA guns now and the few that are left are insane in price. Sure, $200 doesn't sound like a lot now but back then when you can buy a new freakin' car for $500 and the average family is bringing home 5-6k a year it's a lot of coin. __________________ TSR80 - Firmly seated in reality. Basing conclusions on emotions is like wiping before you poop, it doesn't make any damn sense.

April 21, 2010, 10:52 AM	#2
ScottRiqui Senior Member Join Date: January 27, 2010 Location: Norfolk, VA Posts: 2,905	Name of the lobbyist and reference to the interview you're referring to? I'm a little skeptical that anyone working for the Brady campaign in any sort of official capacity would admit to intending to tax ammunition to the point of it being too expensive to carry. And realistically, how much would the tax have to be in order for us not to at least be able to fill our carry guns? Granted, they could force us to cut back on practice ammo, but even at $10/round, I'd still buy enough to carry.