TAX THE AMMO!!!

[gopiscrap]

I've said it before....tax the ammo that folks buy and put that money in a compensation fund for those who are victims of gun violence. The higer power the ammo the higher the tax...say starting at $.50-$1.00 per bullet for the less powerful and up $3.00-$5.00 for the more pwerful caliber. I know I'll getr slammed for this, but short of banning guns, this is the only thing I can think of to protect folks.

[badtoworse]

1. That would be just as unconstitutional as a poll tax.

[gopiscrap]

3. Bullshit

the Supreme Court just upheld the ACA as a tax and said that it is ok...well, add the bullet tax to the ACA since it would be used to heal the victims and therefore it would be part of the ACA tax.

[benEzra]

13. No, you're wrong. See Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, 1983

in which the Supreme Court ruled that a heavy tax on printer's ink violated the First Amendment freedom of the press.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/12734/Minneapolis-Star-v-Minnesota-Commissioner-Revenue.html
http://supreme.justia.com/us/460/575/case.html

[Aerows]

30. There is a tax on cigarettes

No one needs to smoke, and no one needs to shoot weapons, either.

This shit is out of hand. What on earth is the matter with taxing ammunition, when alcohol and tobacco are taxed to the end of the earth?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

37. When SCOTUS comes out with a ruling

That says it's unconstitutional to make cigarettes unsmokable or alcohol undrinkable, then you'll be right. That hasn't happened yet.

But SCOTUS has issued a ruling that says it unconstitutional to force gun owners to render their weapons useless. Taxing ammunition to the point that it is unaffordable will certainly render the guns useless, thus violating the 2nd Amendment rights of gun owners.

Rendering Constitutional rights unaffordable is just plain bad law, regardless of the right under discussion.

[DetlefK]

54. But if the tax is % (like sales-tax), then producers and vendors are responsible for the costs.

As long as you can afford to fire a few dozen bullets on the shooting-range every other weekend, I don't see why a tax should be unconstitutional.

[badtoworse]

57. The effect of the tax is the issue, not the manner in which it is levied.

The effect of this tax would be to restrict the ability of a certain class of citizens to exercise a constitutional right. Besides being unconstitutional, such a tax would also be regressive, i.e.unfair, since wealthy people could afford to exercise their rights, whereas poorer people would be unable to do so.

Christians are routinely excoriated on this site. Would you support a tax on going to church? If not, explain the difference.

[DetlefK]

67. But the government would be free of any responsibility.

It's the producers and vendors that set the prices. A sales-tax of 10 or 20% on ammunition would be neglectable. If ammunition becomes unaffordable, the government could always push responsibility on the vendors.

What about the right to free speech? Are there limits to the prices of pen, paper, loudspeakers and internet-access?

The Catholic Church has contracts way back from medieval times that are still considered valid by today's governments.
I live in Germany and I pay a church-tax (a few Euros per month) deducted from my wage along with all the other taxes and whatnot. I'm an agnostic and wouldn't feel bad about declaring it officially, by opting out of the Roman Catholic Church, saving a few bucks along the way. But then I would lose all rights to services provided by the Roman Catholic Church. What if the girl I'm gonna marry is catholic and wants to get married in a catholic church?

Your example was bad.

[badtoworse]

68. An across the board sales tax, i.e. one that applied to everything would be OK.

An exorbinant tax that applied only to guns and/or ammo would not be OK.

As for free speech, there is a Supreme Court case that dealt with that very question. The State of Minnesota levied an annual tax on paper and ink over $100,000 in value. The Minneapolis Star & Tribune sued claiming it infringed on the 1st Amendment (Freedom of the Press). The Supreme Court struck down the tax for the reasons claimed. See link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Star_%26_Tribune_Co._v._Minnesota_Comm%27r_of_Revenue

[FarPoint]

51. YES!

I'm thinking along the same lines!

[RC]

69. Ammunition is freedom of speech?

Kinda like money is? So groups like the Montana militia, or whatever they are called, could dictate to the rest of us what and how, anything to do with guns and ammunition? Or survive in general, such as how to stock our mandatory Safe Haven hole in the ground? Or even if we are allowed one or to stock it?

Printer's ink has nothing to do with ammunition. False equivalency.

BTY, ammo is not mentioned in the Constitution, only bare bear arms. Front legs? The 2nd Amendment is not very clear or concise. That causes a lot of confusion.

[benEzra]

72. Ammunition is to the 2ndA what printer's ink is to the 1stA, so the precedent is relevant.

A tax intended to have a chilling effect on the lawful and responsible exercise of a constitutionally protected right would be unconstitutional regardless of which right it protected.

Otherwise, a state could put abortion clinics out of business by instituting a 10,000% tax on abortion services, or close down mosques by assessing an annual property tax equal to 10 times the value of the property, or whatever.

But even aside from constitutional arguments, you simply cannot take a lawful activity that circa 80 million voting-age adults participate in to the tune of ~15 billion rounds a year (yes, with a "b&quot and tax it out of existence like that. It is just not politically feasible. Merely raising prices on full-capacity handgun magazines in 1994, and requiring some relatively minor changes to new production civilian AK's and AR's, arguably cost Dems the whole trifecta 1994-2000, and punitive ammo taxation would affect far more voters than the 1994 AWB bait-and-switch did.

FWIW, some data points---ammunition for my daughter's .22LR revolver works out to about 4 cents a round, and ammunition for my AR-15 (centerfire .22) or my 9mm S&W's works out to about 20 to 25 cents a round. A single range trip or shooting match (couple hours) works out to about $15 in range fees and $25 in ammunition, which already keeps me from shooting as often as I'd like but is at least within my reach.

The thing is, punitive taxation wouldn't affect a down-and-outer like the Aurora loser because they could swing a one-time $3K purchase, but they would affect tens of millions of people like me. Which is, I'm sure, precisely the intent.

[lastlib]

82. Just levy the tax on any round NOT FIRED IN SELF-DEFENSE or defense of another person.

If the 2nd Amendment protects the right of self-defense, then there's no constitutional right to target-practice or sport-shooting. Or murderous shooting sprees. So--TAX 'EM!

[benEzra]

93. That would be like saying the 1stA protects published speech, but not unpublished speech, I think.

In any case, target shooting is a necessary prerequisite to the ability to shoot in self-defense, just as writing practice is a necessary prerequisite to journalism, and U.S. v. Heller did explicitly recognize the right to use guns for lawful purposes, not *just* self-defense.

Of course the 2ndA doesn't protect murder, any more than the 1stA protects slander, libel, espionage, or child porn.

It's moot anyway; even if lawful shooting weren't constitutionally protected, there are ~80 million gun owners, all of whom are of voting age, and even the small minority that only owns Mauser-style bolt-actions with straight stocks would push back hard at the polls if you slapped them with a means test.

Last time I checked, target shooters were going through about 14 billion rounds annually. Target shooting is not a fringe activity...

[Pacafishmate]

109. Thinking like that would effectively hand over control to repubs.

[RC]

88. You mean like cigarets?

you simply cannot take a lawful activity that circa 80 million voting-age adults participate in to the tune of ~15 billion rounds a year (yes, with a "b&quot and tax it out of existence like that. It is just not politically feasible.

They kill people too.

[global1]

11. Come On Now - What About The Taxes On Cigarettes......

isn't that the same concept as the OP is indicating for ammo?

[NickB79]

15. The issue would be the 2nd Amendment

As in, heavily taxing the very material needed to make a gun effective (the ammo) would be in itself a potential violation of a constitutional right, whereas smoking a cigarette isn't a constitutional right so those can be taxed away.

[hack89]

20. Not when the purpose of the tax is to restrict a Constitutional right.

it is not different then requiring a tax to vote.

[Major Nikon]

96. Doesn't pass the bullshit test

If you legally own a handgun in NYC it will cost you over $400 for the license.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/permits/HandGunLicenseApplicationFormsComplete.pdf

[hack89]

98. The OP is proposing an ammo tax for the express purpose of restricting access

pretty black and white.

And an administrative fee is not a tax - reasonable taxes and administrative fees are ok. I have no problem paying for a government service. Buying ammo is not a government service.

But you can't implement a tax for the express purpose of restricting a civil liberty. This is established US law.

[Major Nikon]

99. I didn't see anything in the OP about restricting access

The OP said tax ammo to set up a victims fund.

[hack89]

100. How does a victim fund "protect folks"?

secondly, if even if not intended, if the result of such a tax was to restrict access by making it too expensive for many, it would still be illegal.

[Major Nikon]

101. So what do you think $400 to register a gun does?

[X_Digger]

102. Onerous fees and elaborate hoops (made intentionally worse by govt)..

..are being challenged in Chicago. Daley kept getting his hat handed to him by the courts. DC's byzantine system has been challenged, and is still being made simpler / cheaper.

I'm sure New York is on the SAF's list to be addressed.

[hack89]

103. Those fees have been deemed constitutional in court - I have no problem with them. nt

[Major Nikon]

104. So call it a bullet fee

Problem solved (as if there was a problem before).

[hack89]

105. It is a pure commercial transaction - I am not buying anything from the government.

why does the government get a fee?

[Major Nikon]

106. It's already explained in the OP

The description of the "tax" actually describes a fee, not a tax, because the proceeds would go towards a "victims fund" which ties back to the activity and the primary purpose is not to raise revenue, which would make it a tax if that were the case.

[hack89]

107. So it has to be a small enough amount so as to not make ammo too expensive

for a large segment of gun owners.

A couple of cents per 100 rounds sound reasonable.

[2on2u]

53. Assault ammo isn't as dangerous as cigarettes. n/t

[catbyte]

26. Bullshit, badtoworse

The Constitution only says you have the right to bear arms. It says nothing about having the arms armed.

Diane
Anishinaabe in MI & mom to Taz, Nigel, and new baby brother Sammy, members of Dogs Against Romney, Cat Division
"Dogs Aren’t Luggage--HISS!”

[SickOfTheOnePct]

29. True

But in the Heller decision, SCOTUS ruled that rendering weapons useless is a violation of the 2nd Amendent. Taxing bullets to the point that they are unaffordable would most certainly be tantamount to rendering them useless.

[rhett o rick]

31. Do you have anything to back up that statement. Or did you pull it out of your assets? I say bullsh

it to you.

[badtoworse]

43. Poll taxes were used to prevent a class of citizens from exercising the civil right to vote

At the time they were in use, black people were predomimantly poor and could not afford to pay the tax. As a practical matter, the tax denied them the right to vote and was rightly declared unconstitutional. See attached link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax_(United_States)

A similar case was decided by the SCOTUS that involved state taxes on newspapers' use of paper and printers ink:
MINNEAPOLIS STAR v. MINNESOTA COMM'R OF REV., 460 U.S. 575 (1983)
460 U.S. 575
MINNEAPOLIS STAR & TRIBUNE CO. v. MINNESOTA COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA

The SCOTUS held that the tax was an unconstitutional restriction on the freedom of the press and violated the 1st Amendment.

See link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Star_%26_Tribune_Co._v._Minnesota_Comm%27r_of_Revenue

To my knowledge, neither the federal government nor any state have imposed an exorbinant tax on ammunition as a way of restricting the exercise of 2nd Amendment rights, so there is no legal precedent to cite. The tax described in the OP would do just that, i.e. use the power to tax in order to deny a class of citizens (gun owners) their civil rights. In that respect, it would be no different than a poll tax. It's hard to see how the SCOTUS, especially this one, would find such a restriction constitutional given that taxes levied on the exercise of other constitutional rights have been struck down.

The OP's tax would almost certainly be challenged in court. How would you defend it?

[lame54]

58. Bullets are votes?...

in a way I guess they can be

[badtoworse]

60. Access to them is one of your civil rights and the OP's tax would restrict that right.

[lame54]

70. don't confuse bullets with guns

[badtoworse]

73. The 2nd Amendment refers to arms, not bullets or guns

Without ammunition, a gun is nothing more than a paperweight.

I have not personally read this, but elsewhere on this thread, a poster stated that in Heller, the SCOTUS said that measures that would render a firearm non-functioning (which making ammunition unavailable would obviously do) are unconstitutional.

[ileus]

2. ban the ammo.

That would show those gunner baser toter bigots.

[NickB79]

8. And 10 seconds later the Democratic party would be voted out of every part of government

A measure as extreme as that would lose us the House, Senate, and White House for years to come, and most state governments to boot, and just see an ammo ban measure repealed immediately by the Republicans once they were in control.

Yeah, that would totally show them

[loli phabay]

10. not to mention every locality were people own guns from school boards to dogcatcher

[ileus]

23. But we'd all be safe from their bullets.

[NickB79]

25. No, we wouldn't

There are literally BILLIONS of bullets stored in the US today by millions of gun owners, and ammo can last for decades. And like I said, any ammo ban would be immediately overturned by the Republicans their first day in office after the Democratic Party was run out of town.

It's cutting off your nose to spit your face taken to a horrible extreme.

[rhett o rick]

32. You are soo right. We must just lay down and let the gun crazies shot up our families.

We have no other choice.

[joeglow3]

64. You are sooo right. We need to enact policies that accomplish nothing and hand over all control

to the thugs. We have no other choice.

[rhett o rick]

74. That's what the gun "enthusiasts" would have us believe. Everything we

come up with the NRA tells us that it is no good.

[NickB79]

77. That's what history has shown us

The Democrats lost the House and Senate following the 1994 AWB (which was far less objectionable than a call to ban all ammo, BTW), and Al Gore lost his home state in the 2000 elections due to his signing of the AWB.

Like I said, any attempt to ban ammo would relegate the Democratic Party to the trashcan for years to come. There's a reason President Obama hasn't said anything about gun control during his entire presidency.

[rhett o rick]

90. So you are saying we are afraid of the gun crazies. We give up our principles

because we are afraid of the power they wield? Good grief.

[NickB79]

75. No, we need to find intelligent solutions to these problems

That won't cut our throats in the process.

This is politics we're talking about here, not a perfect, magical world where anything can happen if we wish it hard enough.

[rhett o rick]

89. We have one group that in my estimation, is a majority saying we need more control

on guns and ammunition. While a very powerful, right wing sponsored group tells us to sit down and take it. They say that a few deaths here and there is a small price for their ability to amass as many guns as they want. I say bullshit. Gun "enthusiasts" refuse to work on this problem, so average Joe American must take steps to limit guns and ammunition.

Fuck the Republican Party and their right hand NRA.

[HappyMe]

4. Sure.

Tax Twinkies, fast food, soda, ammo just like they do liquor and cigarettes.

[gopiscrap]

5. Tend to agree with that

when I lived in Europe we were taxed on soda, chocolate, liquor, cigs etc and that was partly funded their health care....

[NickB79]

6. It already is, in several ways

First, any imported ammo and guns are subjected to an excise tax: http://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/importation-verification/general-information-excise-tax.html

Second, gun owners have voluntarily asked for their guns and ammo to be taxed as a way to support wildlife habitat protection: http://southern.ducks.org/article_sportsmen-conservation.php

The next major legislation supporting wildlife conservation in the United States was the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, or Pittman-Robertson Act, of 1937. Sponsored by Congressman A. Willis Robertson of Virginia and Senator Key Pittman of Nevada, the act established an 11 percent manufacturers excise tax on sporting rifles, shotguns, ammunition, and archery equipment, and a 10 percent tax on handguns. The shooting sports industry strongly supported this legislation, even at the risk of losing sales, at a time when most Americans had little money to spend on recreation. The USFWS distributes the tax revenues to state conservation departments, which partially match federal funds, largely with money raised from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses. In this way, all gun buyers and participants in the shooting sportseven those who dont huntdirectly support wildlife habitat conservation.

[global1]

12. Let's Protect The Wildlife So We Have Enough Around For Target Practice.....

but people - oh - let them fend for themselves. There's a lot of them anyway and we need to thin the herd. (sarcasm)

[atreides1]

7. Okay

And you actually believe that this extra tax money will be placed in a fund for victims of gun violence...that the politicians, as they always do won't put some kind of loophole so they can use the moeny for something else?

You do know that some people will only go and purchase the materials they need to make their own ammo...and maybe even sell it to friends and family!

Good idea but still doesn't deal with the real problem.

[justanidea]

9. Sounds good

Tax ammo so that people who own a gun for self defense are unable to practice as much and as a result, are a worse shot and more at risk of hitting an innocent bystander in a self defense scenario.

Makes sense.

[rhett o rick]

33. You cant be series. Maybe we should give more people guns and make it manditory

for them to practice so they wont ACCIDENTLY kill us but protect us from the crazies. This is a new level of bullshit.

[TheKentuckian]

44. I don't tend to favor mandatory purchases of any market good or service

I do believe in gun education starting in elementary school as safety and awareness and more comprehensive with age. In a country with as many guns as people or more considering the black market and the tons of old stuff that never was accounted for, ignorance is dangerous.

One should be free to part ways with guns and never look back but they should understand them, know how to use one, respect what they do, have basic competence in shooting and breaking down common weapons, and know how to safely handle one. People with a introduced early fuck around a whole lot less.

[TheCowsCameHome]

14. They'd go naked and hungry in order to buy ammo. n/t

[slackmaster]

16. Of course, government employees would be exempt from the proposed ammunition tax

They'll need plenty of it in order to enforce collection of the ammunition tax.

...short of banning guns, this is the only thing I can think of to protect folks.

Please keep thinking. I'm sure you can come up with something better if you really apply yourself.

[rhett o rick]

34. You seem to enjoy our consternation. Shame on us for trying to protect ourselves

from crazies with guns. Whatever we say you are quick to tell us how that wont work. But I am sick of the gun violence. I am sick of the NRA. Dont you have any empathy? Or do you see that as a weakness?

[slackmaster]

39. It's likely that many things in your life pose a far greater risk than violent crime does

It's a serious matter, but given the extremely low probability that you or any of your loved ones will ever be the victim of a random shooter run amok, the whole tone of the conversation seems overblown to me.

In spite of the overwhelming amount of attention they get in the media, mass shootings are still extremely rare events. More people become victims of one-off murders every day than in a typical year, many more are killed in motor vehicle accidents and other common injuries. You are about 2.5 times more likely to die in a fall than by gunshot. Falls account for about half of all fatal injuries. More than twice as many kids under 15 drown as die by gunshot - Where is the national dialogue on ensuring that every child learns how to swim?

But the numbers for injuries and adverse effects are dwarfed by the number of people who lose their lives to illnesses that can be avoided through diet and lifestyle choices, i.e. keeping your weight down, exercising, and above all not smoking.

I'm sorry if that seems cold to you, but people really aren't very good at getting their heads around large numbers.

ETA Yes, I understand how these crimes affect the people who are unfortunate to be their victims. I don't mean to minimize their grief or suffering in any way.

[Troy Cookin with Gas]

17. hmmm

if smaller calibers are less taxed... wouldn't bad guys just shoot MORE of the cheaper bullets?

[NickB79]

19. The VA Tech shooter used a .22 rimfire handgun

Probably the least-powerful gun you can find, and yet managed to kill more people than the Aurora jackass armed with a semi-auto rifle and a shotgun.

[julian09]

83. He didn't have time to practice.

what will happen to the 5900 rounds that he didn't get to use? Maybe he had something else in mind when he bought the ammo.
Is the right to bare arms for a militia or individual?

[Comrade_McKenzie]

18. I agree. It's a waste of resources to be firing weapons for the fun of it...

If it's all about self-defense as people claim, then they're not going to be hit with the tax regularly.

[NickB79]

22. You need to practice regularly to shoot a weapon effectively

Nothing burns me more than seeing a hunter pull a deer rifle out of it's case, fire a few bullets at a can 50 yd downrange and say "I'm sighted in, lets go hunting!" These idiots invariably wound the game they're after and blame it on the gun. For self-defense of yourself and your family, it's just as important you stay in practice with your gun, and that requires firing live ammo occassionally at the range.

[Logical]

21. So the shooter in Colorado would have worried about expensive ammo???? Jesus, really? n-t

[Lizzie Poppet]

24. ...and create a thriving black market similar to the one for drugs.

What could possibly go wrong?

[dmallind]

27. One more reason this won't work

....since people have already suggested the many other reasons.

Reloading. A large proportion of frequent recreational gun users "roll their own". You'd have to tax common commodities with several other uses.

And when your plan is to shoot a large number of people that nigh every single time ends in a)suicide b)death by cop/armed citizen or c)life imprisonment, why would you care what your credit card balance would be anyway?

[krhines]

28. Chris Rock on taxing ammo

[FarPoint]

52. Perfect.....

That is exactly the logical thinking that needs to be applies.

Thank you for sharing and welcome to DU.

[permatex]

56. And we're supposed to believe Chris Rock?

[calimary]

35. The only thing I disagree with here is your low-ball suggestions for the more powerful caliber

bullets.

If it were up to me, every one of those would cost at least $100 per bullet. And THAT, I think, is pretty low-ball, too.

[justanidea]

38. So you would make it so that only the 1% could own guns? nt

[calimary]

42. Frankly, my dear, if it were up to me, I'd make it so that hardly ANYBODY could own

guns and ammo like that.

Imagine if Holmes hadn't been able to afford to buy those 6,000 bullets online? I'd bet you any suggested retail price for any bullet of any size that the loved ones of every one of those 12 lost souls at that movie theater toss and turn in their beds every night for the rest of their lives - wondering what if. What if those bullets had been out of this asshole's price range, would my son, daughter, grandchild, niece, nephew, brother, sister, husband, wife, boyfriend, girlfriend STILL BE ALIVE.

Actually, I'd go after this - in any way I could think of. As Machiavellian as the next guy, I'd be. Whether it's the cost of bullets, the cost of guns, surcharges on online sales, FBI notifications for alarms going off at the amounts of items, FBI checks and local police background checks on EVERY purchase online or at any gun show or parking lot outside any gun show. ANY way to foul up the works and make it harder to get guns and ammo like this, I'd go for. I'd take a page from all the nitpickers trying to think of ANY way on earth that they can foul up the works on a woman's right to choose. ANY fine print. ANY discouraging factor. ANYTHING. I'd try it all, on every front imaginable and a few that probably aren't. And I'd turn the full force of that on gun ownership.

If I were king.

And I'll bet you're glad I'm not.

[justanidea]

45. Even if your proposal would've worked to save lives

A few years back a guy not far from where I live was running around breaking into the homes of the elderly, robbing them, and brutally assaulting them. Eventually one elderly woman fought back and shot him.

Instances of self-defense are not uncommon.

Oh sure, charging $1,000 per bullet might save a few lives here and there from mass murderers (Probably not though, since anyone with half a brain can make ammunition. Either that or traffic it into the U.S.), but how many more would die due to the fact they would have no reliable means of defense if attacked by someone?

"If I were king"

I think you meant to say tyrant.

[calimary]

48. Only a tyrant to those who just HAVE TO HAVE those fucking hand-held weapons of mass destruction.

Honestly, that kind of tyrant I wouldn't mind being. It'd damn well be a public service. It would stop this obscene insanity and jones for wanton useless violence and pointless carnage and death. And it would save innocent lives.

The harder and more inconvenient and time-consuming and hassle-prone, the better. The discouragement factor might not work for everyone. But it'd work against enough of 'em.

When the assault weapons ban was in place, a statistic I heard today indicated that mass murders and multiple gun deaths dropped by 60 percent. True enough, not perfect. Didn't prevent them all. But that was enough to keep at least a few grieving loved ones from sobbing themselves to sleep for the next few decades. That'd be more than okay by me.

Gee, let me think. WHAT A SHAME that some nutcase might be prevented from taking out his frustrations and murderous intentions on a dozen or more innocent people.

WHAT A SHAME that somebody with ill intent might be stopped, or at least slowed down. HOW TRULY, MONSTROUSLY HORRIBLE!

WHAT A SHAME that some sadistic asshole with a hard-on against something and a chip on his shoulder or a Rambo complex or mad at the world and itching to seek some cosmic twisted revenge prompted by some voices in his head or other imagined "grievance" against those good ol' black helicopters and imaginary New World Order meanies would be hampered or hamstrung in his murderous plans.

WHAT A SHAME that such a gutwrenching and unfathomable tragedy should be prevented from befalling on other mothers and fathers. Or sisters. Or brothers. Or grandmas and grandpas. Or nieces. Or nephews. Or young husbands. Or young wives. Or maybe another several six-year-old girls who never did anything wrong except spill ice cream on their party dresses. Whose lives are non-essential? Whose lives are dispensable and disposable so any Tom Dick and Harry can go play Shootout at the OK Corral for real? Who should we sacrifice for the sake of preserving somebody else's right to kill?

I didn't like monster-scale weapons of mass destruction being in the hands of bush-cheney and fiends. I don't like handy-dandy smaller-scale personal-use weapons of mass destruction widely and easily available to the hands of some civilian nutcase or lone wolf with some weird-ass score to settle, either.

I just hit a tipping point with this one, justanidea. This was it. Sorry, but I'm done. My tolerance for gun ownership just dropped down below zero with this one. I tried for years to see the other side's point of view. Tried for YEARS to stay mellow about it. Even tried to get to know firearms up close, myself. Most unsettlingly, I discovered to my dismay that I'm a rather good shot, too. I don't want any part of it. I'd love to be able to take all the guns from everywhere, load them all into a rocket, and launch that rocket straight into the sun so they're all incinerated.

And I'm still waiting for an answer to questions posted days ago - HOW MANY MASSACRES IS ENOUGH for the gun-loving community? HOW MANY? HOW MANY IS ENOUGH? HOW MUCH WANTON SLAUGHTER IS TOLERABLE AND EXCUSABLE for the sake of the almighty "freedom" to shoot people? How many more massacres is it okay for you to shrug off, and say "oh well. Too bad. Second Amendment. End of argument. Suck it up." Sorry, but that's NOT the end of the argument for me.

And every time I see or hear or read - here on DU or anywhere else, that we should just give up on it. End of argument. Don't even ask. Don't even pursue it. Won't happen. All those fabulous guns and weapons of mass destruction are here to stay. NRA too powerful. Don't even bother bringing it up. Nothing will EVER change. It's a dead issue and a closed case - that makes me all the more determined to press ahead with it. And NOT give up.

[99Forever]

61. This should be an OP, Calimary.

I also hit the tipping point with the Aurora Massacre. Your last paragraph, echos my thoughts.

[lastlib]

85. BRAVO!! BRAVO!! BRAVO!! x1E50!!

Awesome Reply!! We need more of this thinking in Congress and state legislatures!!

[KarlHungus08]

108. Not sure where you're getting your information, but...

...the assault weapon ban did not cause multiple homicides to drop by 60%. Not even close. Handguns are used in the vast majority of homicides - assault weapons like AR-15s account for about 1% of firearm murders. In fact, according to a study published by the National Institute of Justice (the R & D agency within the US DOJ), "The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun
murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims." (https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/173405.txt) Furthermore, the rates of violent crime, homicide, assault, rape, theft have all dropped since the ban expired in 2004 (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm).

Have you ever met a real drug dealer, or criminal? I've encountered a few in my life. None of them would simply hand in their firearms if we repealed the 2nd Amendment. Take a look at Mexico. They have very Draconian gun laws, and their murder rate is MUCH higher than ours. Look at Australia - in 2007, five years after their gun ban was enacted, their Bureau of Criminology acknowledged that there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. Actually, you don't even need to look outside of the United States - read up on the Washington D.C. handgun ban.

Finally, let's suppose that the Aurora shooter was unable to get his hands on a firearm because our legislators made them illegal (and that's a pretty big hypothetical, because he probably would've been able to buy a gun on the black market anyways). Why do you think this would have made a difference? You don't think he'd just use explosives instead?

[CTyankee]

79. beautiful rant, calimary! I couldn't agree more but with the words and passion you put forth.

Esp. with what you said about survivor's grief, which my family knew all about. The grief follows them all until the day they die. What happens to them as a result of the slaughter of their loved one are the untold stories.

People come on these threads and act like this is all just play. Bang, bang, just a big show. BUt after the headlines and allthe publicity dies down, the survivors go on with their lives and those lives are changed forever.

[jp11]

36. That won't protect anyone.

A 'taxed' bullet isn't any less dangerous than an untaxed one and guess what if you want to kill lots of people and have little imagination while wanting to be 'effective' guns are going to be your choice.

Figuring you may be killed and really wanting to do this act of murder why would you suddenly be hesitant about maxing out a credit card, selling some crap, taking out a payday loan or any other method to obtain more money that an extra $5.00 will cost you per say 200 bullets if you didn't use a smaller caliber to get more ammo.

Too many people have been harping on 6000 rounds of ammo on the internet and it turns out there was something like 3000 for the rifle and 3000 between the handguns and shotgun IIRC. Even beyond that point he 'only' used 1 drum of 100 rounds never firing his pistols with what 10-15 rounds per clip or the shotgun. How many 100 rounds drums do you think he had on him, how many hands does he have to fire off 2 handguns, a rifle and a shotgun that will somehow make the remaining 5000+ rounds somehow more dangerous than the few hundred he likely could've gotten off before some law enforcement agent confronted him with deadly force?

[gopiscrap]

40. at the very least then....

there would be a fund for gun violence victims.

[backscatter712]

41. I'd suggest taxing guns too.

You'll have a hard time banning firearms, especially given the current rulings from the Roberts Supreme Court.

However, Roberts himself did say that Congress had a hell of a lot of leeway in the power to tax, when he voted to uphold the ACA.

Tax guns.

Low taxes for guns used primarily for sport - 22 caliber rifles, deer rifles, duck-hunting shotguns. For the most part, leave legitimate gun-owners alone. These taxes are designed to make it harder to get a hold of really destructive weapons.

When I say "highly destructive weapons, I mean weapons with high-capacity magazines, accessories like bayonets, firearms that can shoot 30 rounds without reloading right out of the box... (personally, that's how I define an "assault weapon" - a semi-automatic long-gun capable of firing more than 15 rounds of ammo between reloads.)

And make sure the tax applies to private and person-to-person sales. If you want to sell a gun to your buddy, you'd need to go to the gun shop, pay the proper tax on the sale and get what in old days was a tax stamp, but would today be a certificate of legal sale that certifies that the tax was paid.

And anyone who sells guns on the black market gets busted for failure to pay the taxes.

Taxes aren't just for raising revenue, but also for modifying behavior. And the beautiful thing is that we're not making assumptions that guns aren't already in circulation - millions of guns are already in circulation. We're just providing some economic incentives using Congress' taxing power. And maybe those incentives might cause the really destructive weapons to be less available, thus become more expensive, perhaps become collectors items, like legal full-auto weapons are, so they end up in the collections of rich people, and not so often in the hands of murderers.

Just suggesting an approach for discouraging the sale of more destructive firearms.

[quaker bill]

46. Annually

You have to license your car every year, it should be the same with a gun. The tax does not need to be prohibitive, no more than a license tag for a car. If you don't want to pay the tax, you can turn them in and the tax collector will stop billing you. If you really feel you need one or more for protection, an annual tax of say $50 each is a small price to pay. People pay alot more for alarm systems. As they say, "freedom isn't free".

[justanidea]

47. As long as we're taxing Constitutional rights...

I propose a tax on 4th and 5th amendment protections. Police have a much harder job catching criminals since they aren't allowed to just randomly search people's homes and person. $50 a year would be a small price to pay for your "Warrantless search protection ID card". The proceeds could help fund police departments. Also, public defenders cost a lot of money. If you want to use one, make sure you pay your $50 tax each year. Otherwise, no public defender for you! As they say "freedom isn't free".

[quaker bill]

49. Well

On the 4th ammendment, I am secure in my property as long as I pay my property taxes, they just don't issue a card. If I stop paying the taxes, they will and regularly do auction off the property to the highest bidder. When the tax deed closes, the police will come and remove you from the property.

Do you think public defenders magically just appear out of thin air? They actually already are funded by tax dollars. In short, you do pay for them, they just don't separate it out from the rest of the bill.

A reasonable licensing fee would not restrict gun ownership. Anyone who can afford the ammo sufficient to make the weapon useful and practice enough to be proficient in its use would easily be able to afford it.

However, folks who wish to maintain a full arsenal might find it a bit more pricey, but either one is wealthy or has a warped sense of priorities to hoard guns and ammo. Those who bought a piece on a one time whim, have no real use for it, and keep it unused in a sock drawer might be tempted to sell it or turn it in to avoid the fee.

I know, it is not mentioned in the blessed Constitution, but I pay an annual licensing fee for my fishing poles.

[badtoworse]

55. What's a "full arsenal"?

I don't shoot as much as I used to, but even now, I'll go through a hundred or two rounds in a day. Lots of people do that most weekends. How much would that cost in taxes?

[quaker bill]

92. Whatever sales taxes are where you live.

I am talking about an annual registration fee for the gun. It costs me $35 a year for my fishing poles, if I want to use them. They can gather dust for free. Guns are a bit different than fishing poles, as no one to my knowledge has ever robbed a bank with a fishing pole or started foul hooking people to death in a movie theater. So letting guns gather dust for free does not work for me.

If you are truly blowing through a couple hundred rounds a day, you have a rather expensive habit. I don't think for even a moment that a little registration fee will get in your way.

It is only my opinion and I have the same right to bear it as you do to keep your guns. It is even in the Constitution, so suffer it you must.

A full arsenal is in the eyes of the beholder. My arsenal is entirely full without a gun, and always will be. Others seem to require dozens of guns or more. Some neighbors moved out from next door a while back, they needed one van just for the guns and ammo, the second one was used for the furniture.

(edited to add)

(Oh BTW, if there had been a registration fee required, someone might have noticed that these neighbors were mostly convicted felons who had lost the RKBA. Did I turn them in? What does a group convicted felons with a van load of weapons and the fact that I am here to tell the tale say to you?...)

[badtoworse]

94. Taxing civil rights is different than taxing anything else

The power to tax is also the power to restrict or to destroy. If you study the Bill of Rights, you will see that it is not a document granting certain rights to the citizens; it is a listing of things the government does not have the power to do. One of those things is to infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms. The OP's idea is to use the power to tax to accomplish just that and for that reason, it would be struck down. Your idea is no different except for the amount of the tax.

I don't have a problem reimbursing the cost of processing a permit application. I would have a big problem with an annual tax being applied on civil rights as a means of raising revenue or discouraging the exercise of those rights. If it's OK to tax one civil right, why not tax all of them? We could use the revenue, so how about a tax on going to church or having to pay a fee to get your Miranda rights?

You don't have a constitutional right to fish in the state's waters; it's a privilege. The state is perfectly within its powers to charge you a fee for a fishing license. From a legal standpoint, rights and privileges are very different.

[quaker bill]

95. I would not possess a firearm

Not because I have a problem with hunting, or shooting sports. I have done both in my past.

I would not possess a firearm because I refuse to be part of a subculture that holds this to be a civil right. It may be the law as recently re-interpreted by a republican supreme court. I unconcerned about what they deem to be legal. A great many things are entirely legal, but have stupid written all over them.

It is apparently your constitutional right, as interpreted by this court, to build your house on the beach where the next hurricane will assuredly rip it apart and send it ashore as wind borne shrapnel to damage and injure others, and it is "unconstitutional" for government to interfere with you doing so in any way.

I will not partake of a "right" that costs this many innocent lives. It is a personal opinion and a personal choice, and I clearly have the constitutional right to it, every bit as much as you have the RKBA. When the day comes that the court finally re-interprets the 2nd amendment, I will not be among the protestors.

[badtoworse]

97. That is entirely up to you. Good discussion, though.

Have a nice one.

[slackmaster]

65. Poll taxes weren't considered "prohibitive" either

Why not bring them back too?

[4th law of robotics]

63. A tax specifically for something covered in the constitution

Awesome.

Once that precedent is set couldn't we implement special taxes for newspapers, cable news providers, oh of course the services provided by a lawyer, and so on?

[IvanKilmensky]

110. Because every firearm can be organized into Military and civillian

"highly destructive weapons" your definition is cute
we already have that classification, a destructive device; it is what keeps people from buying weapons higher than .50 caliber and explosives without a expensive permit and background check

"personally, that's how I define an "assault weapon" - a semi-automatic long-gun capable of firing more than 15 rounds of ammo between reloads."
So a ruger 10/22 is an assault weapon?
So a lever action rifle is an assault weapon?
So any small caliber, tube fed rifle should be taxed as an assault weapon?

"Weapons with...accessories like bayonets"
So you would declare every rifle with a bayonet lug to be a destructive weapon and tax the owners?
so my land pattern Brown Bess is a baby killing assault weapon?

"Taxes aren't just for raising revenue, but also for modifying behavior"
How many supreme court cases must you ignore before you learn that the government cannot use taxation to infringe upon a right.

[belcffub]

50. Firearms and Ammo are already taxed 20% in my area

there is a federal excise tax on all firearms and ammunition currently in place, the Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (FAET). It provides for over half a billion to fish and wildlife conservation...

The Firearms and Ammunition industry is only just over a $4 billion dollar industry.

The taxes rate is 11%. In my local area I also pay a sales tax. Together I already pay a 20% tax... seems plenty enough for me

[DrDan]

78. not even close

[belcffub]

91. to what

20% seems pretty step to me...

[krispos42]

59. It is taxed.

Aside from the point-of-sale sales tax, there's also a built-in federal excise tax.


It's also a stupid idea... if Sideshow Bob had spend $3,000 on ammo to buy 6,000 rounds, he would have still purchased the ammo, only maybe 750 rounds instead.


The nutcase at the Giffords shooting fired about 20 rounds or so. You're talking about taxing billions of rounds in order to drive of Loughner's price for the ammo by, what, twenty bucks?


And you really think that a 50-cent tax on a 10-cent cartridge is reasonable?

[Remmah2]

66. It would also spawn a blackmarket.

There would be theft from untaxed government ammunition supplies by criminals as well as theft by government employees.

[DrDan]

80. of course not - perhaps a couple of bucks gets closer

[4th law of robotics]

62. If you were planning a killing spree that would leave you dead or in jail for the rest of your life

how big of a deterrent would next months credit card bill be?

"Well I was going to go shoot up a school and probably die in the process but next month that would leave me with a huge debt that I couldn't pay off. And not paying off your debts is just wrong. I won't do it! It wouldn't be right".

[X_Digger]

71. Like taxing printer's ink and paper?

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/460/460.US.575.81-1839.html

Not.gonna.fly.

[julian09]

84. repeal second ammendment and citizens united at same time.

[X_Digger]

86. You know that repealing the second amendment wouldn't remove the right, correct?

Rights aren't granted by the bill of rights; the bill of rights is a 'the government shall not' document, not a 'the people can' document.

No, if you repealed the second amendment, then the right would still exist in various state constitutions (see tenth amendment). If the various states repealed their analogues of the second amendment, then it would be an unenumerated right under the ninth.

Sorry, the right protected by the second will not go away.

US v Cruikshank

"This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.


Presser v Illinois

"the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms"

[The Straight Story]

76. The rich people will thank you - now only govt and rich will have these things

Which seems ok with some in the party.

Maybe we can tax abortions too while we are at it, since some believes that harms someone and is not something people usually need but want.

[lastlib]

81. x1E28! K & R!

...oh, yeah--AND the guns!!

[-..__...]

87. That's Ridiculous...

&feature=youtu.be

[IvanKilmensky]

111. HOW ABOUT I TAX YOUR WEED

If the state of washinton put a 1000% tax on marijuana to subvert the constitutional amendment to legalize weed, you would be up in arms, citing president against the use of the power to tax being used to destroy. What if each ounce had a $300 state issued tax that went to a fund for DUI accident victims?

In short of banning weed, this is the only thing I can think of To Protect folks.