Remove the tax on Firearms/Ammo?

[kpt018]

That's a side effect to some extent but where the money goes is controlled.

I don't think the people that say remove the exempt status would really like what would happen if it was removed.

Controlled to an extent. But they still hold a tremendous amount of assets and never paid tax.

I believe we should remove tax exempt status and remove the deduction on people's 1040s for donations to churches. It will never happen, but it should. Multi-million dollar buildings with super expensive art and artificts is not required to worship.

 

[sickc0d3r]

Well if tax is an "infringement" on my right to bear arms, then so is any cost at all. I want my free gov't gun now. I'm assuming it'll be a musket.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The tax exempt status of churches is to help enforce the separation of church and state.

It prevents the churches from politicking from the pulpit.

Is that true? Seems like when I hear of religion it's in the context of politics.

Limits to free speech include incitement, false statements, obscenity, copyrights, etc. The classic example is that yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater as a prank is not protected speech. As to the second part of the question, they are both rights, they can both be abused, and they both have limits. Any analogy I could come up with beyond that would be apples to oranges.

I'm not sure I understand the second question. Do I think that the founding fathers thought it was a right for citizens to own common weapons for lawful purposes? Probably. But then again, most of them were cool with owning slaves, so I don't put a lot of weight into the originalist school of thought.
I'm not a legal expert by any means, but I think recently the SC has ruled that weapons "in common use at the time" are protected. "Fringe" arms is subject to interpretation, but things like handguns and sporting arms used lawfully are protected.

So how would any of that translate to current gun law such that personal ownership/storage/use of a particular subclass of a subclass of arms could be prohibited from the citizenry? Or having to wait before taking possession of a recently purchased firearm? Or needing a background check to prove that you're eligible to exercise your right?

It's a simple question. The Amendment says "arms", not "firearms". I'd say nuclear weapons are fringe. Firearms are not. Nor are select-fire weapons, considering they're in use by practically every fighting force worldwide. Picking and choosing which exact firearms could be owned is obviously an "infringement". Just because you like that type of oppression doesn't change the meaning of those terms. And slavery is a red herring at best. The Constitution was amended to change that deplorable situation and nothing of the sort has happened in regards to firearms. In short, one is expressly forbidden by the highest law of the land and the other is enshrined in it.

Well if tax is an "infringement" on my right to bear arms, then so is any cost at all. I want my free gov't gun now. I'm assuming it'll be a musket.

In the Bill of Rights it's the federal government that is restricting from infringement. Having to compensate another party for goods and services hardly qualifies.

 

[sickc0d3r]

In the Bill of Rights it's the federal government that is restricting from infringement. Having to compensate another party for goods and services hardly qualifies.

Ok, well sales tax is a state tax, so that would be exempt, and any state tax related specifically to firearms would also be exempt.
If we are only talking about federal taxes specifically on firearms, there are costs associated with enforcing laws and regulating use, and federal taxes are levied in exchange or compensation for those related services. Whether or not we agree with the cost of those services or the need for some of them, I don't see how they are an infringement on our right to bear arms any more than any cost associated with the use and regulation of firearms.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Ok, well sales tax is a state tax, so that would be exempt, and any state tax related specifically to firearms would also be exempt.
If we are only talking about federal taxes specifically on firearms, there are costs associated with enforcing laws and regulating use, and federal taxes are levied in exchange or compensation for those related services. Whether or not we agree with the cost of those services or the need for some of them, I don't see how they are an infringement on our right to bear arms any more than any cost associated with the use and regulation of firearms.

The BoR was incorporated against the states so a state tax is no different than federal at this point.

Your position is that government bureaucracy created to enforce stripping people of their right must be paid for exclusively by those exercising said right? Otherwise I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with me. I stated clearly in one of the first posts in the thread that I had no problem with guns/ammo transactions being taxed at whatever the standard amount is for other goods/services.

 

[Grrrr]

But a lot of firearms excise taxes go into State fish and wildlife agencies, do they not? I don't really have a problem paying it, if it goes into a good cause like that.

A park close to me has hunting grounds, a lake for fishing, shooting range, skeet range, and a place to shoot bows.... Paid for by the pittman-robertson act. 85% of Maryland wildlife funding is done through firearms and ammunition taxes.

 

[jlagman]

Meh gun tax goes to things I like and I haven't really noticed it hurting my piggy bank too bad. Make your own ammo and save some $.

That's what happens here in Oklahoma. Taxes on anything "hunting and fishing" supports the State Wildlife Department.

A park close to me has hunting grounds, a lake for fishing, shooting range, skeet range, and a place to shoot bows.... Paid for by the pittman-robertson act. 85% of Maryland wildlife funding is done through firearms and ammunition taxes.

All this stuff, cool in my books. I started out as a recreational shooter and developed my interest in hunting fairly recently. The amount seems reasonable, around 10% or 11% and funds a pretty good cause, IMO.

I won't support a bullshit, cost-prohibitive, "fear tax" though.

 

[Grrrr]

All this stuff, cool in my books. I started out as a recreational shooter and developed my interest in hunting fairly recently. The amount seems reasonable, around 10% or 11% and funds a pretty good cause, IMO.

I won't support a bullshit, cost-prohibitive, "fear tax" though.

Oh I absolutely agree. If the tax used on firearms and ammunition is used to replenish, replace, or just help out wildlife and parks then it's an easier pill to swallow.

 

[Higus]

So how would any of that translate to current gun law such that personal ownership/storage/use of a particular subclass of a subclass of arms could be prohibited from the citizenry? Or having to wait before taking possession of a recently purchased firearm? Or needing a background check to prove that you're eligible to exercise your right?

It's a simple question. The Amendment says "arms", not "firearms". I'd say nuclear weapons are fringe. Firearms are not. Nor are select-fire weapons, considering they're in use by practically every fighting force worldwide. Picking and choosing which exact firearms could be owned is obviously an "infringement". Just because you like that type of oppression doesn't change the meaning of those terms. And slavery is a red herring at best. The Constitution was amended to change that deplorable situation and nothing of the sort has happened in regards to firearms. In short, one is expressly forbidden by the highest law of the land and the other is enshrined in it.

A) They relate in that they are limits to prevent abuse. I won't comment about specific gun control policies; I certainly don't agree with how every law is written or executed. But limits are still necessary.

B) Any room you leave for interpretation in the law is going to end up getting debated eventually. "Fringe" and "common" are going to be up for interpretation. Nukes are one end of the scale, hand guns and hunting rifles are on the other. The courts will use "common use at the time" as a guide to determine what is and what isn't exempted. Select-fire is common in the military, not in civilian use. Semi-fire AR's are becoming more common, so that's probably where the next legal battle is going to occur. Picking and choosing in those gray areas is a state's right; the higher courts just set the bare minimum limits and guidelines. You might not be able to legally own a specific type of gun, but if you can still own a different type gun, has your right to bear arms been infringed? Laws will always be tricky like that.
Re: slavery; I bring it up because I think the idea of strict original intent is ridiculous. The constitution was amended. An originalist would say it shouldn't have been. Anyone who says there is never reason to create exemptions or change any amendment is being obtuse and short sighted.

 

[oldshadow]

Is that true? Seems like when I hear of religion it's in the context of politics.




So how would any of that translate to current gun law such that personal ownership/storage/use of a particular subclass of a subclass of arms could be prohibited from the citizenry? Or having to wait before taking possession of a recently purchased firearm? Or needing a background check to prove that you're eligible to exercise your right?

It's a simple question. The Amendment says "arms", not "firearms". I'd say nuclear weapons are fringe. Firearms are not. Nor are select-fire weapons, considering they're in use by practically every fighting force worldwide. Picking and choosing which exact firearms could be owned is obviously an "infringement". Just because you like that type of oppression doesn't change the meaning of those terms. And slavery is a red herring at best. The Constitution was amended to change that deplorable situation and nothing of the sort has happened in regards to firearms. In short, one is expressly forbidden by the highest law of the land and the other is enshrined in it.



In the Bill of Rights it's the federal government that is restricting from infringement. Having to compensate another party for goods and services hardly qualifies.

Yes to keep tax exempt they have to walk the line like all do.

 

[sickc0d3r]

The BoR was incorporated against the states so a state tax is no different than federal at this point.

Your position is that government bureaucracy created to enforce stripping people of their right must be paid for exclusively by those exercising said right? Otherwise I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with me. I stated clearly in one of the first posts in the thread that I had no problem with guns/ammo transactions being taxed at whatever the standard amount is for other goods/services.

You quoted me, remember? I just responded with my own thoughts.
My position is basically that there are costs associated with regulating firearms and taxes are required to pay those costs. I also need an ID to buy a firearm, which costs money. Those costs are not an infringement on my rights, in my opinion. If one wishes to argue that the regulations themselves, and things like wildlife services or something being tied to firearms are an infringement, that's fine and I might agree in some cases.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

A) They relate in that they are limits to prevent abuse. I won't comment about specific gun control policies; I certainly don't agree with how every law is written or executed. But limits are still necessary.

B) Any room you leave for interpretation in the law is going to end up getting debated eventually. "Fringe" and "common" are going to be up for interpretation. Nukes are one end of the scale, hand guns and hunting rifles are on the other. The courts will use "common use at the time" as a guide to determine what is and what isn't exempted. Select-fire is common in the military, not in civilian use. Semi-fire AR's are becoming more common, so that's probably where the next legal battle is going to occur. Picking and choosing in those gray areas is a state's right; the higher courts just set the bare minimum limits and guidelines. You might not be able to legally own a specific type of gun, but if you can still own a different type gun, has your right to bear arms been infringed? Laws will always be tricky like that.
Re: slavery; I bring it up because I think the idea of strict original intent is ridiculous. The constitution was amended. An originalist would say it shouldn't have been. Anyone who says there is never reason to create exemptions or change any amendment is being obtuse and short sighted.

Well there it is. You've alluded to things outside the realm of what the 1st was intended to protect and used them as a reason to infringe on another liberty that was intended to be protected.

lol. What scale has nukes on one end and handguns on the other?

Seems kind of silly to have taxed something out of people's hands for almost a century, flat out prohibited new purchases for three decades, then justify the whole thing by saying the items aren't commonly owned by the citizenry. All while ignoring they are standard issue for fighting forces and the 2nd's clear intention of enabling the citizens as a fighting force.

Not sure who is arguing your "originalism". The fact is the document can and has been changed many times. Are you trying to justify bypassing that in favor of contorting logic and language in order to get what you want by claiming some people believe the Constitution shouldn't be changed?

As for the part in green, let's do that and apply that same thinking elsewhere. So long as you can be a Jew or Christian or Hindu then there's no problem outlawing Islam? After all, religion is still available to you. Or how about just in public? Maybe create some zoning laws to get rid of Mosques? Let's limit the military to what the citizens can own and see if they complain about their options.

Yes to keep tax exempt they have to walk the line like all do.

So if a church preaches about the evils of abortion or being pro-anti-2nd Amendment rights that's a violation of some sort? Or they just can't donate to political campaigns?

 

[Rod1]

What a retarded thread, can you prove that you cant own guns because of the tax? no.

Taxes on commerce are not an infrigement, an infrigement would be if you wanted to make your own gun and government told you not to. Like with 3D printers.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

You quoted me, remember? I just responded with my own thoughts.
My position is basically that there are costs associated with regulating firearms and taxes are required to pay those costs. I also need an ID to buy a firearm, which costs money. Those costs are not an infringement on my rights, in my opinion. If one wishes to argue that the regulations themselves, and things like wildlife services or something being tied to firearms are an infringement, that's fine and I might agree in some cases.

Yeah, I quoted what you said and asked about it. It doesn't really make any sense and nothing you've said subsequently as changed that. Here it is again. Can you validate this in any way? Right now it just looks like faulty logic and nothing in your post above addresses it.

Well if tax is an "infringement" on my right to bear arms, then so is any cost at all. I want my free gov't gun now. I'm assuming it'll be a musket.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Taxes on commerce are not an infrigement, an infrigement would be if you wanted to make your own gun and government told you not to. Like with 3D printers.

Knowing that most people lack the ability to construct their own firearm (without the aid of others or their tools and equipment) and taxing them exorbitantly on their purchase is an infringement (i.e. the NFA's $200 tax stamp enacted in 1934). Don't you think? Unless somehow "infringement" meant "prohibition" back a couple centuries ago. What's your understanding of the word?

 

[Rod1]

Knowing that most people lack the ability to construct their own firearm (without the aid of others or their tools and equipment) and taxing them exorbitantly on their purchase is an infringement (i.e. the NFA's $200 tax stamp enacted in 1934). Don't you think? Unless somehow "infringement" meant "prohibition" back a couple centuries ago. What's your understanding of the word?

Well yeah, if they taxed with the express purpose to make it unattainable, then yes, it would be an infrigement.

 

[sickc0d3r]

Yeah, I quoted what you said and asked about it. It doesn't really make any sense and nothing you've said subsequently as changed that. Here it is again. Can you validate this in any way? Right now it just looks like faulty logic and nothing in your post above addresses it.

My posts addressed it very precisely, actually. Taxes aren't different than any other payment required to cover the cost of things.
I was trying to be a funny with the gov't gun comment, but I thought that was obvious.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I was trying to be a funny with the gov't gun comment, but I thought that was obvious.

Well that was pretty much the substance of your post and gun-grabbers say some stupid shit. Like looking only at "well-regulated militia", ignoring the rest of the sentence and the context, then claiming that's what the other side does when they point out the right "to keep and bear" belongs to "the people". So you never know and I'm not familiar enough with your overall position to parse out what % of your comment was facetious.

 

[sickc0d3r]

Well that was pretty much the substance of your post and gun-grabbers say some stupid shit. Like looking only at "well-regulated militia", ignoring the rest of the sentence and the context, then claiming that's what the other side does when they point out the right "to keep and bear" belongs to "the people". So you never know and I'm not familiar enough with your overall position to parse out what % of your comment was facetious.

Ok, no worries, that makes sense. I don't post in the wr a lot because people take things so seriously (not referring to you). I forgot these gun threads are particularly salty sometimes. It gets exhausting and I am too lazy to research so I can back up every damn word I say, heh.

 

[Byron Carter]

Well if tax is an "infringement" on my right to bear arms, then so is any cost at all. I want my free gov't gun now. I'm assuming it'll be a musket.

Negative.

"Shall not be infringed" =/= Shall be provided.

You can make or buy any arms you want under the constitution. This includes tanks, helicopters, etc. The government has no rightful place at all in the exchange or restriction of arms.