Instead of "tax stamps" - flat tax on firearms

[jeremy]

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

I'll concede that to you...

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.

My biggest problem with your plan is the idea of adding a tax to end legislation does not work and will never work, the only then it does is start another never ending tax...

You wanna start making assaults against the NFA BS, then start by bringing about the end of the '86 Legislation and work backwards in chronological order repealing/overriding the different bans...

 

[Bill of Rights]

I would say that 292 was passed in the best form possible, given the opposition it faced from the anti-gun forces. I think that those forces are what needs to be fought and removed from office. In re: NFA 34 and/or GCA 68, no, a full-on legislative frontal assault is not the answer. The answer is getting people into positions like that of the Speaker of the House, Majority Leader, President Pro Tem of the Senate, etc. who will push for censure, impeachment, and ouster of senators and representatives that treat the Constitution and their oaths of office as just so much toilet paper. The answer is getting back to what they all agree to do but so few actually follow through and DO.

In the meantime, Mr. Gura's approach is the best way to handle it, and yes, that's a form of incrementalism. I'd like to see a case brought that the Court would look at and say that the 2A, as written, is the law, and that the 20,000+ gun laws on the book, including NFA and GCA are all null and void and the ATF is unConstitutional. I don't see that happening. I don't like the fact that it won't happen that way, but I understand why the Court doesn't do that, due to precedent.

Long and short of it, judicially, incrementalism is kind of forced on us. Legislatively, however, is another story entirely, IMHO.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[chraland51]

Crap on any more taxes on my guns. I already pay sales tax and probably a few hidden taxes that very few of us even know about. The slimeballs in Washington need to figure out how to reduce spending instead of thinking about more ways to nickle and dime me into the poor house.

 

[T.Lex]

My biggest problem with your plan is the idea of adding a tax to end legislation does not work and will never work, the only then it does is start another never ending tax...

I somewhat agree with this, and am more than willing to admit that the power to tax is the power to destroy.

But, that can be used to some advantage, in a judo-esque way. In my experience, the left has rarely ever met a tax they didn't like. As KF noted, firearms are already taxed. So, a smidge of increase in that tax will be something palatable, in exchange for increasing the overall gun market.

You wanna start making assaults against the NFA BS, then start by bringing about the end of the '86 Legislation and work backwards in chronological order repealing/overriding the different bans...

I'm not opposed to this kind of methodology, I'm just not creative enough to come up with a plan to achieve it.

And, this is to address BoR's points as well. This idea is most certainly not my ideal resolution to the current conundrum. Far from it.

But, it is a "way forward." Sometimes, you have to mix things up. From my perspective, the gun rights war is entrenched. Clearly defined positions and rhetoric. No one really moves. We need to come up with something to rearrange the pieces.

And, on the spending side, of course. In the larger debt debate, that should be the focus. To that end, it would likely require fewer ATF/IRS agents to enforce a per-sale tax than the tax-stamp system. This could serve to reduce spending and increase revenue in one fell swoop.

I wonder how the CBO numbers would come out on that....

 

[Steelman]

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

And that tax resulted in the Whiskey Rebellion......hillbillys have been making it illegally since then.

Absolute rights to own nukes or repeal NFA '34............just no taxes.

 

[Dirc]

Heck, how many gun owners have no idea that when you buy a revolver or .308 rounds that you are subsidizing duck hunters?

Guilty.

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.

Oh yeah.

 

[ryknoll3]

I think the catch with doing away with the $200 stamp would be that the .gov considers the registration a "tax return" proving that you've paid the $200 on that particular firearm. If the tax went, the "tax return" would have to go and the registration would be kaput.

I am all in favor of that, by the way, (repeal NFA) but I don't think what the OP suggested would be feasible.