Maryland proposes tax on ammunition...5cents per round!!

1BadF350

New member
HB1393
Bill Text: Not available at this time (03/06/07)
Fiscal Note: Not available at this time (03/06/07)
Hearing Date: Not available at this time (03/06/07)
Synopsis:
Authorizing a person to sell ammunition for a regulated firearm on or after January 1, 2008, only in accordance with the Act; requiring an ammunition manufacturer to encode ammunition for a regulated firearm in a specified way; requiring the Secretary of State Police beginning on January 1, 2008, to establish and maintain an encoded ammunition database; imposing a tax of 5 cents per round on the sale of encoded ammunition beginning on January 1, 2008; etc.
http://mlis.state.md.us/2007RS/bills/hb/hb1393f.pdf
Will this ever stop? They keep lobbing these rediculous gun laws at us and we have to win every time...they only have to win once.

This means most ammo can be taxed, even .22lr.
 
Last edited:

Al Norris

Moderator Emeritus
Of course it would help to have the exact text of the bill handy, but...

requiring an ammunition manufacturer to encode ammunition for a regulated firearm in a specified way
And just how many ammo manufacturors are going to retool just for Maryland?

Methinks this is nothing more than an ammo ban.
 

JR47

Moderator
Even California gave up on this. Of course, California found the fired shell casing database to be an unworkable plan, but Maryland HAD to have it.

Just curious, but what will the funding supposedly be used for? There might be a chance to de-rail the legislation by forcing the funding to be used for a specific, publicly palatable, cause, and stipulating that this be additional funding, and that the original budget must be maintained, adjusted for inflation. The monies would then be ear-marked, and untouchable, while the initial funding of the recipient would also be locked in an ever-increasing spiral. The end result would be to make the entire deal so unpalatable to politicians that it would die in committee.

Coupled with a public outrage, it would make the entire idea seem like another political way to tax the public. After all, Maryland has spent millions on the spent-shell casing, with no positive results.

A tax on ammunition would have to go to either EMS or LEO, or perhaps DNR. None of these are going to gain politicos any points.:)

Maryland isn't so large that you can't cross a border in less than an hour or so. How would they prevent out of state sales from supplying the citizens??
 

TimRB

New member
"Even California gave up on this."

No, they didn't. These bills (ammo taxation, microstamping, ID required, etc.) come up every year, and they have to be defeated every year. In large measure the same legislators introduce the same bills over and over and over. They do this for two reasons: 1) It allows them to say they're "doing something" to combat gun crime, and 2) maybe one day it will work; it costs them nothing to try.

Tim
 

JR47

Moderator
Now, just how would the seller ascertain that the .223 ammunition that he was selling was going into a bolt-action rifle, or a non-folding stock Mini-14 rifle? What about .308? If the .45 ACP ammunition was to be used in a Marlin Camp.45, would the tax not be collected? How about 9mm in a High Point Carbine? Cowboy Action shooters use pistol caliber rifles, are they exempt, as well? What about .22 Short, Long, Long Rifle, or WMR? .17 HM2 or .17 HMR?

You'll note that the tax collected, after the amount necessary to run the database, all goes into the General PorkBarrel Fund. It would seem more equitable if the counties were given the money generated by stores in those counties. Also, the excess profits should be used for something besides pork. This will force the politicians to make unpalatable choices.

Fight it as bad government. The fired shell casing law has cost millions to implement, for zero return, and eats up millions every year. This would result in a huge beauracracy that would spend monies for yet another boondoggle. Are there going to be two types of ammunition sold? One encoded, and one not? Is the State of Maryland going to be required to buy, at current values, ammunition that's not encoded from it's citizens? Why should the citizenry have to lose money disposing of ammunition stocks? What is the purpose supposed to be for this legislation? Are there going to be repercussions included in the law for agencies that are exempted to be held accountable for loss or theft of unsecured ammunition? Criminal penalties? After all, the papers are full of LEOs who lose car-loads of ammo and weapons. How would the law work if such thefts were allowed to go unpunished? It will only take a couple of politicians willing to tack on such verbage to show this for the dishonest actions of the few.

Maryland already loses millions of dollars in tax revenues through it's shell-casing law, and it's Handgun Review Boards restrictions in Trade. This new law would create an entirely new class of criminal. There will be many who simply don't hear about it, or don't understand it well enough to comply. Dad's old rifle, and the boxes of ammunition he had with it, has been sitting in the attic since he died in the 1970s. Mom's probably forgotten about it. One day it's unearthed, and put up for sale. Mom becomes a felon for having unencoded ammo. Yeah, that's exactly what they're after. :barf:
 

Old Gaffer

New member
Crosshair wrote
Mabee we should tax them for every law they pass. The fewer laws they pass, the more money they make.

Sorta like on "Win Ben Stein's Money"!

Only maybe we can sweeten the pot and toss in a few bucks for every law they repeal! :)

I'm liking this, folks...;)
 

Eghad

New member
All that will happen is that stores will pop up on the borders of the state. As far as the provision for handloading that probably would not hold up in court. The manufacturere sure as heck aint going to retool for Maryland. I guess when they cant buy any ammo for law enforcment because nobody is willing to violate state law they might get a clue.
 

Norton

New member
All that will happen is that stores will pop up on the borders of the state. As far as the provision for handloading that probably would not hold up in court.

If the bill passes, there will be no possession of non-complying ammunition after 2010. It would do no good to go to another state.
 

WhyteP38

New member
If a bill like this passes, my guess is that reloading would become vastly more popular. You would not be buying ammunition; you would be buying ammunition components. You would also not be selling ammunition; you'd be using it yourself. Given all that, the restrictions don't appear to apply to reloaders.

Regardless, I suspect the bill, if it passes, will run afoul of the Commerce Clause.
 

Norton

New member
Reloading is no good:

ON OR BEFORE JANUARY1, 2010, AN OWNER OF AMMUNITION FOR USE IN A REGULATED FIREARM THAT IS NOT ENCODED BY THE MANUFACTURER IN ACCORDANCE WITH§ 5–603 OF THIS SUBTITLE SHALL DISPOSE OF THE AMMUNITION
 

Eghad

New member
If the bill passes, there will be no possession of non-complying ammunition after 2010. It would do no good to go to another state.

By 2010 the law would be stricken down or changed.
 

Norton

New member
Eghad,

With all due respect, MD isn't Texas. Common sense that those of you in the United States take as a given doesn't exist here.

As an example, we have a ballistic fingerprinting law on the books whose process has been de-funded. No money to process the casings so they just go in a 55 gallon drum and sit. We tried to get the law repealed on the basis that it had been de-funded and that didn't even go away.

If it goes on the books, we'll probably be stuck with it.
 

WhyteP38

New member
Reloading is no good:


Quote:
ON OR BEFORE JANUARY1, 2010, AN OWNER OF AMMUNITION FOR USE IN A REGULATED FIREARM THAT IS NOT ENCODED BY THE MANUFACTURER IN ACCORDANCE WITH§ 5–603 OF THIS SUBTITLE SHALL DISPOSE OF THE AMMUNITION
Well ... that sux. However, I wonder if the state would actually arrest people if a big group - say, 500 or more; thousands would be better - declared that they would peacefully assemble at a local range to peacefully do some target practice with unmarked ammo. Or probably better, peacefully assemble in a parking lot to peacefully buy and sell unmarked ammo. Sort of a "Million Rounds March" or "Million Munitions March" or something. All completely peaceful with no violence or violent gestures. That kind of mass civil disobedience seems to work for other groups.
 

Double J

New member
nickle sales tax per round

Is 5 cents sales tax more or less than normal/ round? If you pay $20.00 for a box of 20 and sales tax is nomally 7% you could actually save money. That kind of depends on what you're used to. 5 cents/.22 LR could get expensive.
 

Eghad

New member
The tax isnt the problem its serial number stamping cases....

We have the decison that people in DC should be able to own firearms. Firearms dont work without ammo. I wonder if the same court would view it as backdoor legislation designed to prevent second amendment rights?
 

GoSlash27

New member
Well, let's see here...
Maryland Constitution says " The Constitution of the United States, and the Laws made, or which shall be made, in pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, are, and shall be the Supreme Law of the State; and the Judges of this State, and all the People of this State, are, and shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or Law of this State to the contrary notwithstanding."

This jibes with the 14th Amdt of the BoR
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
and leads back to the 2nd.

So this raises the basis for a challenge on Constitutional grounds. Infringement of RKBA due to regulatory taxation on ammunition.

Of course, that means somebody must first have their rights infringed.
 

SecDef

New member
Well hold on.. There is already the fact that to get a Class III license, it is pretty much just a matter of money. Is that not the same situation? Or is it that the cost of paying a processing fee isn't infringing?

The tax is ridiculous, but make sure the argument against it is well thought through. A tax without benefit is a crappy tax, but it doesn't look like a constitution issue, just stupid.
 
Top