I’ll take “no chance of passing whatsoever”, Alex
Proposed 50% tax on guns and ammo. I think we should ban the current one that is 11%.
6 Responses to “I’ll take “no chance of passing whatsoever”, Alex”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
September 10th, 2013 at 8:24 am
How about a tax on stupid? Oh wait, we already have the lottery.
September 10th, 2013 at 1:56 pm
It ain’t a tax if I have the option of not paying it.
Then it is legal gambling against very loooooong odds.
And the ads that tell you, “You can’t win if you don’t play” covers the situation concisely, letting me know the only penalty for not playing – 50,000,000+ chances not to win for every $1 I keep in my pocket.
September 10th, 2013 at 2:30 pm
The existing Pittman-Robertson excise tax on ammo, guns, and a lot of other sporting equipment, is on top of state sales tax.
It funds a great deal of wildlife conservation and was adopted at the specific request of sportsmans organizations approx eight decades ago.
September 10th, 2013 at 4:05 pm
Like SPQR says, the current Pittman-Robertson tax is a dedicated tax. It MUST be spent on wildlife conservation and shooting sports programs.
Personally, I really don’t mind that particular type of tax as long as the governing bodies play by the rules and don’t through the dough into the general coffers.
September 10th, 2013 at 4:52 pm
I can’t look it up now, but wasn’t there a US Supreme Court case that held that a tax on printer’s ink was an impermissible tax on free speech? Why wouldn’t this onerous, odious and punitive 50% tax on ammunition be an impermissible infringement on the right to keep and bear arms?
We won’t discuss now the idea that such a tax to treat the effects of “gun violence” would be like a tax on every female person within the United States to treat the effects of prostitution (or for that matter every male person). Burden the non-participants in other words.
September 11th, 2013 at 11:09 am
Windy — based on several court cases (including one on marriage license fees, IIRC), it is unConstitutional to tax a Constitutionally protected activity unless the tax (or fee) is only large enough to fund the SPECIFIC Constitutionally acceptable function it is being collected for — so, a marriage license fee, for example, is only allowed to be large enough to fund the program of registering marriage liceses, NOT any of the rest of teh clerk’s office budget.