Instead of "tax stamps" - flat tax on firearms

[T.Lex]

In my mind, my idea would accomplish that. There would be 2 classes of firearms/items (like suppressors):
- those you can buy, with a Brady background check/whatever;
- those you can't.

For all in the first category, you'd pay a bit more in tax. For the latter, well, the rules wouldn't change at all. I guess C&R would still be in the first category, but without the background check? I've never done a C&R, so I don't know. (Plus, Mosinmania looks FAR too contagious and expensive for me.)

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The Collectors License works just like C&R but for Title II.

If you want a whatever, go ahead send in the money and your signed Collectors' License, just write it down.

 

[indykid]

Why should firearms be taxed at a higher rate than anything else? What truly makes them so special that they merit a special tax?

Never mind, I answered that myself. We pay a special tax after buying a car (license fee), we pay a special tax to drive a car, we pay a special tax yearly to own a home.

Never mind....

 

[Double T]

I don't think so. We pay to much for them to give us less freedom now.

Besides, who wants them to know EVERY gun purchase you make? Where will the taxation stop? Loaded cartridges? Primers, brass, lead, powder, shooting targets?

 

[Mosinguy]

So you spend 1200-1500$ a month on new firearms? If you have 20-30,000 dollars a year to buy new guns you're going to own one of everything before 2020 but you don't want anything class3?

A little voice inside me is saying you're just arguing for the sake of arguing...

I think he said $120-$150 a month
A little voice inside me is saying you're just arguing for the sake of arguing...

 

[Plinkuh]

I think he said $120-$150 a month
A little voice inside me is saying you're just arguing for the sake of arguing...

10% of 1200-1500 dollars would be 120-150 dollars...get it now?

 

[Bunnykid68]

How about they just quit taxing our Rights......

 

[navarre1095]

So instead of taxing a few owners, you'd have all gun owners pay more taxes? why not just reopen the registry and collect a buttload of $200 stamps? I'd gladly pay $200 extra for a machine gun if MG's weren't a bazillion dollars.

 

[Twentyfootdaredevil]

10% of 1200-1500 dollars would be 120-150 dollars...get it now?

This is correct. I set aside a certain amount of money every month for my hobbies: guns,gun parts,ammo,wheeling parts,trip money.

I average 1000-1500 a month. Lately I have spent my money on guns and gun parts.

Keeping a jeep together and taking trips is an expensive hobby when you are as hard on equipment as I am!

 

[Mosinowner]

How abut no firearms restrictions at all? ( well violents felons you still have to be punished so no find for you)

 

[T.Lex]

The Collectors License works just like C&R but for Title II.

If you want a whatever, go ahead send in the money and your signed Collectors' License, just write it down.

So instead of taxing a few owners, you'd have all gun owners pay more taxes? why not just reopen the registry and collect a buttload of $200 stamps? I'd gladly pay $200 extra for a machine gun if MG's weren't a bazillion dollars.

I would say these may be valid compromise positions, but they don't address what I see as a fundamentally irrational distinction between Title II and Title III. And, frankly, now that you mention it, C&R stuff has the same issue.

I mean, is there any rational difference between a Mosin and a SBR? I'm not talking technology or action-type or year of production. A firearm is a firearm is a firearm. (With the possible exception of am M1 Garand, which might also be considered a work of art IMHO.)

And sure, in an ideal world, guns wouldn't be taxed any differently than saws or drills or any other tool. But, again, from a practical perspective, politics is about gives and gets. To get something - the removal, or at least mitigation, of the irrational distinction - we'd have to give something up.

Oh, and lest I not make this clear, I do think the irrational distinction is open to legal attack that it is unconstitutionally arbitrary and capricious. Alas, that battle is lost. Time to move to a battlefield of our choosing.

The debt crisis could be an opportunity for a paradigm shift.

 

[2A_Tom]

The debt crisis could be an opportunity for a paradigm shift.

What a fabulous idea raise taxes to pay off the debt, college loans, finance healthcare and lazy people. Let's all vote Communist/Democrat in 2012.

Because we all know that it is our fault that the debt is so high the OWS owe bills, everybody can't afford the very best health care and lazy people are lazy.

 

[T.Lex]

heh heh

My hidden-purple detector picked up what you did there.

Of course, no. This idea has no intention, let alone any potential, to solve the debt problem.

Rather, in the same vein as anti-2A people pick dramatic gun-violence events to try to create more restrictions, this idea takes advantage of a temporary (sorta) problem to effect a fundamental change in gun regulation that would ultimately be more pro-2A.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Ok, I wasn't sure where to post this - General Firearms, NFA - but decided on here. But, if a mod disagrees, I'm open to having it moved.

Anyway, as noted in another thread, I just finished re-reading Unintended Consequences by John Ross, which is an absolute must-read for any gun owner. In that book, though, much ink is spilled on the irrational differentiation between NFA and non-NFA weapons. Particularly, in the lethality of them. Guns 'r guns.

So, it got me thinking. Instead of the irrational system of tax stamps, what alternative might there be? The gov't isn't too keen on giving up any sources of revenue, so if we did away with NFA tax stamps, it would have to be replaced with something. And, if that something could actually generate MORE revenue for .gov, it might be doable.

Which brought me to the idea of eliminating NFA tax stamps, but replacing it with a 5 or 10% federal sales tax on all firearms bought through a dealer. The "firearm" definition might be retained, in that for some guns it would be the lower/upper/bolt carrier/etc. so accessories would be exempt. Private sales would be exempt from the sales tax. The difference in price would be nominal for most people. And, any "chilling effect" would be minor, too.

It would open up NFA markets to more purchasers, though. And, I gotta believe that it would generate more revenue.

Any thoughts?

Thoughts? Just one: Not only "no" but "Hell effing NO!"

If I was doing something against the law, no one would compromise with me to get me to change it. The law that applies to and restricts the federal government (and arguably, states as well) is the US Constitution. Tax stamps, that is, the taxing of the exercise of a right, has, IIRC, been ruled unConstitutional by SCOTUS (I read something to that effect from an attorney here, but I forget who and can't give a cite, sorry) Our Constitution makes the infringement of the RKBA a violation of that Supreme Law of the land.

Appeasing those who violate individual rights is not the way to convince them to stop. Repeal NFA 1934!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[T.Lex]

Appeasing those who violate individual rights is not the way to convince them to stop. Repeal NFA 1934!

heh heh

My friend, that's kinda the goal, but accomplishing it by indirect means.

Think of it this way - would you trade a 5% tax on all firearms for the repeal of NFA 1934? Granted, it should be held unconstitutional, but that is unlikely to an extreme.

So, if we are forced into incrementalism, why not now? (Although, I think the "start" was letting the AWB sunset, so this is more like continuing the momentum.)

 

[Bill of Rights]

heh heh

My friend, that's kinda the goal, but accomplishing it by indirect means.

Think of it this way - would you trade a 5% tax on all firearms for the repeal of NFA 1934? Granted, it should be held unconstitutional, but that is unlikely to an extreme.

So, if we are forced into incrementalism, why not now? (Although, I think the "start" was letting the AWB sunset, so this is more like continuing the momentum.)

Would I trade a 5% tax on all guns to achieve the repeal of NFA '34? No.

That, to me, is like asking a rape victim if he or she would accept the rapist wearing a condom... either way, that person is still getting screwed.

It's a false paradigm to say that we are forced into incrementalism. That thought process is what the above mentioned rape victim uses when he or she says, "If I don't fight it happening a little bit, maybe I can get away before it gets even worse."

No. If you've made the decision that you are NOT going to allow yourself to be a victim, you fight with everything you have and if you die fighting, so be it.

(Please note that I'm using this horrible crime only as an example of what I see our government, specifically some of the agencies, but overall as well, doing to the citizens for whom they work.
I know that some of our members have been victimized by rapists and other sexual assailants in the past, and may not have done this. I am not in any way disparaging those survivors. They might or might not have made that decision prior to the crime, and if not, could well have simply frozen, among other possible events. Please take no offense, as none is meant.)

 

[Steelman]

We're Americans - we don't like taxes.

We kicked the stuffing out of the British for raising the taxes on tea - let alone guns.


Truth is......if we reacted to some of the legislative atrocities committed in the the last hundo years, the way great-great-great-great grand daddy reacted to an extra penny for his Earl Grey - we might be better off...

 

[2A_Tom]

Originally posted by Bill
Thoughts? Just one: Not only "no" but "Hell effing NO!
Blessings Bill


This!

 

[T.Lex]

It's a false paradigm to say that we are forced into incrementalism.

I (respectfully) disagree. Wouldn't you say that SB292 (as finally enacted) last year represented incrementalism?

Perhaps I am just too jaded on politics, but I don't see the feasibility of a legislative frontal assault on NFA 34/68. Post-Heller, there may be a legal attack, but on the legislative side, I think we are left with guerrilla tactics.

 

[EvilBlackGun]

Taxes, and Gad-dumned taxes.

We're Americans - we don't like taxes. We kicked the stuffing out of the British for raising the taxes on tea - let alone guns.

Yup, that was our first Good War. and how did it get paid for?? Pres Geo Washington put a tax on moon-shine. It is still (no pun intended) there. Why not reduce this gun gambit all the way back to the simple Second amendment? Allow guns to all who want them, except purple felons, purple inhalers/ tokers/ injectors, purple females, and purple minority races? ("Purple; don't you get it?") EBG