H.R. 5717 would implement a 30% tax on all gun sales and 50% tax on all ammunition sales

R

RoyceP

New member
T

thallub

New member
Johnson and his co-signers are pandering to their anti-gun base. H. R. 5717 is going nowhere. It will disappear with the new session of congress.
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
It's not unconstitutional, until it becomes a LAW. Then it can be ruled on. Until then, its just an idea, a proposal, with no force of law, or anything else. It's not worth the paper its printed on, unless you think it is.

Tons of stupid stuff are proposed every session. About everything. The point to the legislative committees is to weed out the worst of it, and toss those in the trash. Sometimes, they do a better job than others...

Almost every session, someone proposes repealing the 2nd Amendment. Those get shot down pretty quick, because even those people who would like to see the 2nd Amendment go away recognize that a bill in the legislature is not the lawful way to do it.

Some time back, there was a proposal to tax our incomes, not on what we made but what we should be making. :eek:

They seriously proposed that, if you had a college degree you should be making X (at the least) and they would tax you on "X" even if you made less. The same bill (or a companion) would have also taxed you (if you had property you could rent) on what that rental property should bring in, according to their charts and graphs, whether it actually brought in that much or even if you didn't rent it at all. Their "wisdom" said you should be renting it, and it should generate "x" amount of income, so they wanted to tax us on that amount of income, whether we actually had it, or not!!!!

Needless to say, that got shot down in a hurry, but that didn't stop some folks from proposing it.
 
D

DaleA

New member
I'm sure this has been mentioned on this site before but isn't there ALREADY a tax on ammunition for "wildlife and environmental" type things???
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
isn't there ALREADY a tax on ammunition for "wildlife and environmental" type things???
Click to expand...

That would be the Pittman-Robertson act of 1937.

It imposes an 11% tax on guns and ammo (and I think it was later expanded to cover archery and fishing equipment).

The tax is not added to the retail price, it is already figured in as part of the retail price. The money does not go to the Treasury, it goes to the Secretary of the Interior, who, by law, spends it on conservation work, wildlife preservation and such things.

its a good law, and a fair tax, was supported by the sportsmen of the time, and is still supported by conservationists today.

Unlike the proposed tax in HR 5717 it is not a "punishment" tax intended to discourage purchase of guns and ammo. There's a huge difference there.
 
D

DaleA

New member
Thanks for providing details on the tax that I was just too lazy (and pressed for time) to look up myself.

Again, thanks.
 
F

FlyFish

New member
That would be the Pittman-Robertson act of 1937.

It imposes an 11% tax on guns and ammo (and I think it was later expanded to cover archery and fishing equipment).
Click to expand...

Yes, Pittman-Roberston originally just covered long guns and ammo, then was expanded to include handguns and archery equipment in the 1970s. The similar law for fishing equipment and sportfish restoration is Dingell-Johnson, passed in 1950. Good laws, both of them.
 
P

peacefulgary

New member
Such taxes are not only anti 2nd Amendment they are attacks on the poor.

Taxes like these are a huge determent for those of modest income.
It makes it much harder for a single mother, who's a waitress, to afford home protection and self defense firearms and ammo.

Of course the rich have ALWAYS tried to disarm the poor.
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
Many years ago, I believe there was a case about taxing printer's ink (used by newspapers) that got shot down because it was deemed an infringement of the First Amendment,

I'm sure you could look it up, I no longer remember the name. Pretty sure the same principle holds, or should.
 
T

TomNJVA

New member
44 AMP said:
Many years ago, I believe there was a case about taxing printer's ink (used by newspapers) that got shot down because it was deemed an infringement of the First Amendment
Click to expand...

That's because the courts respect the first amendment. The courts treat the second amendment as a second class amendment.
 
S

silvermane_1

New member
TomNJVA said:
That's because the courts respect the first amendment. The courts treat the second amendment as a second class amendment.
Click to expand...
If that was true there wouldn't be any laws against "hate speech" there TomNJVA, the courts only respect laws/amendments that empower the 'State'.
 
D

DaleA

New member
If that was true there wouldn't be any laws against "hate speech"
Click to expand...

Well what you have to realize (sarcasm on) is there is a hierarchical order to enforcing laws.

I'm working on a smart phone app so people can have this reference at their finger tips.

As an example of what I am talking about is that here in Minnesota it is illegal to block highways or to block our toy train light rail system.
BUT
If you're blocking the highway for a GOOD CAUSE like SOCIAL JUSTICE the app would tell you that you're okay.
BUT
It also depends on what your blocking the roads affect. The app has to dig deeper to give you your answer.
If you're just blocking regular traffic, (like commuters, police, fire and ambulances) you're okay.
BUT
If you're blocking traffic to a big event then the app has to dig deeper yet.
If you're blocking traffic to a Minnesota Vikings football game you're okay. (But you're not going to win many folk to your side.)
BUT
If you're blocking traffic to the Twin Cities Marathon (an event held dear by the right (or would it be left?) thinking people that run our cities then the law will be enforced and you will suffer the legal penalties. (sarcasm off).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top