Democrats take aim on guns with massive tax increase

[HARK!]

The bill in question — HR 5135 — is meant “To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose an additional 1,000% excise tax on the sale of large capacity ammunition feeding devices and semiautomatic assault weapons, and for other purposes,” according to its lengthy title.

“An AR-15, the bestselling U.S. rifle according to NPR, can cost between $400 for a basic model to more than $2000 for a higher-end model. The new tax proposal would increase those prices to a range of $4,000 to $20,000,” Just the News stated.

Democrats take aim on guns with massive tax increase

“House Democrats have reintroduced legislation that would impose a 1,000% excise tax on ‘semiautomatic assault weapons’ and high-capacity magazines. Rep. Don Beyer, Virginia Democrat, introduced the legislation Friday along with 24 other House Democrats. Beyer had introduced legislation on the...

www.washingtontimes.com

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What's their rationale for implementing such a tax?

If the sole purpose of the taxation can only be attributed to "making it tougher to buy one", then I would expect it to get it shot down (pun intended) for the same reasons a poll tax should be shot down.

Regardless of whether people like or dislike lax gun laws, policy makers shouldn't be trying to use prohibitive taxation as a replacement for actual issue-focused policy making as a way to side step existing laws and court rulings and achieve their aims through back channels.

 

[Tinker Grey]

What's their rationale for implementing such a tax?

If the sole purpose of the taxation can only be attributed to "making it tougher to buy one", then I would expect it to get it shot down (pun intended) for the same reasons a poll tax should be shot down.

Regardless of whether people like or dislike lax gun laws, policy makers shouldn't be trying to use prohibitive taxation as a replacement for actual issue-focused policy making as a way to side step existing laws and court rulings and achieve their aims through back channels.

You know how they have massive taxes on cigarettes? Yeah, it's like that.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You know how they have massive taxes on cigarettes? Yeah, it's like that.

The right to "rippin cigs" isn't a constitutional right, and there hasn't been multiple us district & supreme court rulings affirming it as an individual right.

Proposals like these disproportionately impact people in lower income areas and people of color.

The proposal of "guy with money in the suburbs who can afford it still gets to have one, sorry poor people, you don't" isn't likely to sit well with some people.


...not to mention, even if there weren't any constitutional implications and this was being treated as a privilege like any other, the various states that have legalized marijuana and experimented with different tax policies have found out there is a "taxation/regulation tipping point", in which people will start going back to the black market again to get what it is they want.

New York found that out the hard way as when they levied taxes and regulations on it that were a little too high and tight, a lot of people went back to getting it "the old fashioned way". Thus the reason why in state as big and populous in New York (and where weed is pretty popular), they had some pretty lackluster results with regards to tax revenues from weed sales, only making 50 million in tax revenue. (when their original 2018 estimate was this: "This report estimates the legal, adult-use marijuana market at some $3.1 billion per year in New York State, about $1.1 billion of that in New York City."

For a point of reference,

That's puts them on par with the tax revenue from Montana (a red state with 1/20th the population size)


To summarize...if you want a flourishing black market for gun sales and want even more gun sales happening without a background check, by all means reach for the stars and implement a 1,000% excise tax on it.

 

[FenderTL5]

Proposals like these disproportionately impact people in lower income areas and people of color.

The proposal of "guy with money in the suburbs who can afford it still gets to have one, sorry poor people, you don't" isn't likely to sit well with some people.

That was my first impression, kinda flabbergasting that the GOP didn't try it first.

 

[Brihaha]

You know how they have massive taxes on cigarettes? Yeah, it's like that.

Not yet lol....if they raise taxes on those weapons two or three times a year for twenty years or so then it would be comparable. I have rolled my own for five years so I can afford to buy tobacco, a product grown in my state for hundreds of years.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That was my first impression, kinda flabbergasting that the GOP didn't try it first.

Actually they did...some of the nation's first gun control measures were actually imposed in California when Reagan was governor, and in direct response to Black people deciding they were going to defend their own neighborhoods and "police the police" against mistreatment.

The first efforts a gun control were a response to this:

 

[FireDragon76]

There were informal norms against openly carrying weapons in California long before Reagan signed a law prohibiting open carry.

 

[Ave Maria]

I'm not against sensible gun control, so long as it is designed to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. However, I don't agree with measures that would affect all people. Law-abiding citizens have a right to own guns.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The first efforts a gun control were a response to this:
View attachment 334343

Incorrect. The first effort at gun control in the US was the National Firearms Act of 1934, which placed a $200 tax on "short-barreled rifles," automatic weapons, and silencers and imposed registration requirements on those weapons. This was a response to gang activity in the 1920s and early 1930s.

What's their rationale for implementing such a tax?

If the sole purpose of the taxation can only be attributed to "making it tougher to buy one", then I would expect it to get it shot down (pun intended) for the same reasons a poll tax should be shot down.

Regardless of whether people like or dislike lax gun laws, policy makers shouldn't be trying to use prohibitive taxation as a replacement for actual issue-focused policy making as a way to side step existing laws and court rulings and achieve their aims through back channels.

The NFA has stood for almost 100 years on this exact premise. It's significantly more toothless now though, since the tax has not been increased along with inflation and remains at $200.

 

[Arcangl86]

Interestingly enough, this law is actually less of a burden then if the NFA was adjusted for inflation.

 

[Wings like Eagles]

There is no such thing as sensible gun control, its only about control.
Interesting part of the article:

"But it might be just as effective for voters to recognize that Democrats who advocate defunding the police or ignoring whole portions of the criminal code are neither compassionate nor working in the best interests of their constituents,” the editorial concluded."

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Incorrect. The first effort at gun control in the US was the National Firearms Act of 1934, which placed a $200 tax on "short-barreled rifles," automatic weapons, and silencers and imposed registration requirements on those weapons. This was a response to gang activity in the 1920s and early 1930s.

It's my understanding that the entire impetus for the NFA as an attempt to target the "gangland"-style crime that was popping up during the prohibition era, and wasn't so much of a blanket "let's price the most popular guns out of reach of every day people"

Per the ATF's own website

And ironically, the short-barreled rifles component being left in was a legislative oversight. They had originally aimed at banning handguns, and added SBRs to the list because they thought people would try to use SBRs as an alternative for concealable handguns...but the handgun provision got axed so the SBR thing didn't really need to remain in there as the purpose for it was no longer applicable.


Although, I should've been more specific, the first gun control efforts specifically aimed at every day law abiding citizens is how it should've phrased it.

The NFA has stood for almost 100 years on this exact premise. It's significantly more toothless now though, since the tax has not been increased along with inflation and remains at $200.

The price of guns that fall into that category are already expensive enough that the price alone makes them cost prohibitive for most people.

Interestingly enough, this law is actually less of a burden then if the NFA was adjusted for inflation.

I don't think that's 100% accurate...at least not for all circumstances.

~$4,500 would be the inflation-adjusted equivalent of $200 back then.

A 1,000% tax on a $1500 AR-15 would be $15k right?

 

[Wings like Eagles]

Democrat gun control in Chicago is not going so well, some would say gangland style:

Federal agent robbed on Magnificent Mile as nighttime robbery sprees continue - CWB Chicago

An off-duty federal agent is among the latest victims of Chicago's ubiquitous street robbery crews.

cwbchicago.com

 

[Arcangl86]

It's my understanding that the entire impetus for the NFA as an attempt to target the "gangland"-style crime that was popping up during the prohibition era, and wasn't so much of a blanket "let's price the most popular guns out of reach of every day people"

Per the ATF's own website
View attachment 334362

And ironically, the short-barreled rifles component being left in was a legislative oversight. They had originally aimed at banning handguns, and added SBRs to the list because they thought people would try to use SBRs as an alternative for concealable handguns...but the handgun provision got axed so the SBR thing didn't really need to remain in there as the purpose for it was no longer applicable.


Although, I should've been more specific, the first gun control efforts specifically aimed at every day law abiding citizens is how it should've phrased it.

The price of guns that fall into that category are already expensive enough that the price alone makes them cost prohibitive for most people.

I don't think that's 100% accurate...at least not for all circumstances.

~$4,500 would be the inflation-adjusted equivalent of $200 back then.

A 1,000% tax on a $1500 AR-15 would be $15k right?

My bad. I misread the bill. I thought it was raising the existing excise taxes, not making a new one.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

It's my understanding that the entire impetus for the NFA as an attempt to target the "gangland"-style crime that was popping up during the prohibition era, and wasn't so much of a blanket "let's price the most popular guns out of reach of every day people"

My point was that the NFA was intended to make it tougher to buy specific types of weapons. Just like the proposed tax in the OP. If you want a public safety justification, there's been a notable increase in mass shootings over the past decade or two, and those shootings have primarily been conducted with high-capacity semi-automatic rifles. There's no way to gauge the relative popularity of the AR-15 to the weapons regulated by the NFA, so that argument is a bit disingenuous.

The price of guns that fall into that category are already expensive enough that the price alone makes them cost prohibitive for most people.

Machine guns, yes, but that's primarily because new manufacture is heavily regulated and only pre-1986 rifles can be transferred. SBRs aren't any more expensive than comparable 16"+ rifles though. You're probably not going to find the uber-cheap $400 ones because people buying $400 AR-15s aren't interested in spending an extra $200 just to have a slightly shorter barrel, but a $1500 14.5" AR-15 (which does exist) is going to be comparable to a $1500 16" AR-15 in quality. And if you really want to, you can always buy a $400 16" and re-barrel it.

For reference, a fully automatic Thompson cost ~$200 in 1930. Bolt-action rifles were around $100.

 

[HARK!]

What's their rationale for implementing such a tax?

If the sole purpose of the taxation can only be attributed to "making it tougher to buy one", then I would expect it to get it shot down (pun intended) for the same reasons a poll tax should be shot down.

Regardless of whether people like or dislike lax gun laws, policy makers shouldn't be trying to use prohibitive taxation as a replacement for actual issue-focused policy making as a way to side step existing laws and court rulings and achieve their aims through back channels.

I'm glad that the Democrats decided to start this effort in the election cycle. You would think that they would have learned by now that undermining the Constitution doesn't go well for them on election day.

 

[comana]

I'm not against sensible gun control, so long as it is designed to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. However, I don't agree with measures that would affect all people. Law-abiding citizens have a right to own guns.

The question always comes down to what will be accepted as sensible. Regulating owning an operating of firearms like we do driving and cars is sensible to me. Also, most of the “dangerous people” who carried out mass shootings were law abiding citizens until they started shooting random people in schools, places of worship, or other places people gather. Would having a few more requirements been such a bad idea if it discouraged these law abiding citizens from carrying out their plan to become dangerous people?

 

[rturner76]

The bill in question — HR 5135 — is meant “To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose an additional 1,000% excise tax on the sale of large capacity ammunition feeding devices and semiautomatic assault weapons, and for other purposes,” according to its lengthy title.

“An AR-15, the bestselling U.S. rifle according to NPR, can cost between $400 for a basic model to more than $2000 for a higher-end model. The new tax proposal would increase those prices to a range of $4,000 to $20,000,” Just the News stated.

Yay!

I think those who purchase high-capacity magazines and especially semi-automatics should bare some of the burden of E/R visits that go unpaid and the cost of things like police investigations and the expenses of cleaning up after a shooting. The government ends up paying for much of that so get a 30.06 if you don't want to pay increased taxes. There is really no need for anyone to own 30-round AR-15s or AK-47s even thou they can really make you feel like a tough guy which it what seems to be at the heart of the matter. A 30.06 can rip a bigger hole in a person anyway from my understanding (could be wrong)

 

[HARK!]

There is really no need for anyone to own 30-round AR-15s or AK-47s

Let's discuss that after you have been out in a field, on a dark Texas night, with a herd of about 100 man eating feral hogs.