Cook County “Violence Tax”: Five Cents a Bullet, $25 a Gun

 

Nine days ago, Toni Preckwinkle [above, Il Duce style] proposed a “violence tax” on ammo. The Cook County Board President wanted legal gun owners to pay for the costs of illegal acts by (presumably) illegal gun owners. Not that the money would be ring-fenced. Or that the tax has anything to do with the Board’s forthcoming $100m deficit. Anyway, despite opposition from anyone with half a brain (including Chicago gang bangers who took one to the cranium) Preckwinkle is pushing forward with her expanded plan. msnbc.msn.com reports that today’s the day she submits a budget proposal mandating a five cent tax on each bullet sold and a $25 surcharge for each firearm vended in the County. And guess what? She has the votes to make it happen. Expect a court challenge and plenty o’ media coverage.

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

59 Responses to Cook County “Violence Tax”: Five Cents a Bullet, $25 a Gun

  1. avatarOHgunner says:

    Looks like the reloading supply business in Crooke county is about to see a spike.

    • avatarMashashin says:

      Ohh is this one of those small business jobs that goverment creates?

      • avatarNot Too Eloquent says:

        What the heck else in life is somebody with the name “Preckwinkle” going to do but spend her life trying to control everybody else’s.

  2. avatarGS650G says:

    how about we charge criminals for their crimes?

    • avatarAharon says:

      How about if we also charge the families from which the criminals came out of and the people living in the zip codes where the perps grew up and live?

  3. avatarTotenglocke says:

    And it’ll be upheld. Thanks to the corrupt bastard Justice Roberts, we don’t have any rights anymore because they can all be taken away with punitive taxes.

    • avatarMoonshine says:

      This. This right here is why the current administration must go.

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        Roberts was appointed by G-dub – a Republican. This is why the one-party Republicrat / Demican system needs to go.

        • avatarMoonshine says:

          I agree, but let’s not forget that a bill passed by a dem congress and signed by a dem president is what eventually led to the decision.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          A bill that was also only passed because Republican Senators took bribes in exchange for votes.

          The Republican / Democrat no-choice system has been proven again and again for decades to be horribly broken. We need a multi-party system if we’re ever going to have a chance at actually having a democracy / democratic-republic again.

        • avatarNot Too Eloquent says:

          C’mon Tote, no Republicans in the Senate voted for Obamacare. Speak with facts, please.

        • avatardanio says:

          You have the ability to have multiple viable political parties in the USA, but everyone seems to perpetuate the, “Here in America, you’re either REBUBLICAN or DEMOCRAT” line of thinking.

          People are so deeply entrenched in their partisanship they don’t even know they have the option to vote for something other than an elephant or donkey.

          This is the main issue in the US political system, people get so wrapped up in the blind partisan “with us or against us” mindset that nothing gets accomplished.

          It’s NEVER a waste fo a vote to vote for a 3rd party or independent that best reflects your interests.

    • avatarAharon says:

      Two thumbs up!!

  4. avatarChuckN says:

    Because everybody including crooks buy their ammo in
    Cook County, right?

  5. avatarBrian says:

    Wait you can actually buy firearms in Cook County?

    • avatarbontai Joe says:

      That is what I was wondering. I was not aware that there were any gun shops in Cook County because of the draconian regulations. So if there are no gun shops in the county, what is this woman expecting to collect?

      • avatarGS650G says:

        “what is this woman expecting to collect?”

        Votes.

      • avatarAharon says:

        I believe the most draconian of the anti-gun laws are in Chicago itself that is located within Cook County.

        I just did a search using yelp.com to review gun stores in Chicago. No one has done gun reviews of any possible stores that “might’ be located within the entire City! However, that does not mean that none exist. There were a couple reviews of dealers just outside Chicago and within Cook County.

        I then did a search under yellowpages.com and there was a a gun dealer listed in Chicago if you call a pawn shop a dealer (the shop probably only sells used pump shotguns and bolt action). The listing results were mostly for gun safety training centers in Chicago and outside. Several actual gun stores were listed though they were in the suburbs around Chicago.

  6. avatarready,fire,aim says:

    gee…i don’t understand why tourism has nose dived in the windy city….. i don’t understand why no one would want to move to this place…

    • avatarNot Too Eloquent says:

      Chicago has no sympathy from me. The people elect idiot after idiot. Stupid is as stupid does. None of my Florida business.

  7. avatarLevi B says:

    And it will be presented as, “The country anxiously waits to see how much of an effect this has on violent crime,” rather than, “This cannot have an effect on violent crime.”

  8. avatarjwm says:

    So, if everybody goes to the next county and buys their ammo and guns this brings how much money to cook county. The problem here is just like with California. Once an idea like this takes hold it has a tendecy to spread like cancer.

    In most of my beliefs I’m very liberal, but I can’t vote for the dems because of my guns. And until we punish the dems at the national elections enough to shake them out of this gun control mantra I see no way for any of us law abiding gun owners to get any real respite.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      Democrats will never drop gun control because an armed civilian population isn’t compatible with the ideals of a collectivist government. A collectivist government requires using force to make people do as the government commands (threat of violence if you don’t pay taxes for all of their wealth redistribution programs, threat of jail / violence if you’re politically incorrect, if you criticism their regime, if you try to defend yourself in any way, etc).

      Honestly, I’d love for someone to explain to me how they deal with that contradiction – between believing in an armed population so that they can resist a tyrannical government and at the same time believing that the government should have infinite power to force people to do as the ruling elite command.

  9. avatarGS650G says:

    Since guns and bullets are banned in Chicago this should have no impact on the locals.

  10. avatarblargy says:

    So a box of 500 .22 lr would now be $50 with that tax in Crook county.
    Good thing I don’t live in that useless part of the state.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      Honestly, I didn’t realize how bad most of the country has it until recently. I’m looking for a new job and even states like Minnesota (low population, rural states) have shitty gun laws. I guess I’m just spoiled here in Ohio where we only have two dumb gun laws – one is in the process of being repealed (it defines a loaded magazine as a loaded gun, thus a felony to have in your car – a bill repealing it has passed the house and just needs to be voted on by the senta) and the other one isn’t enforced at all (a ban on putting magazines over 30 rounds for anything other than a .22 into a firearm – but it’s legal to buy, own, and sell them….so it’s not enforced at all and you can walk into a gun shop and pick up a PS90 with the 50 round magazine already in the gun).

  11. avatarBryan K says:

    Well, this should be interesting.

  12. avatarTom jones says:

    Order online??

    • avatarMr. Pierogie says:

      I don’t know if they could force online retailers to collect the bullet tax from people who live in that county, but if anything the retailers will just stop shipping there altogether. Who’d want to spend extra money just to comply with stupid regulations from just one county? NJ has restrictions and some companies won’t even ship things that are legal here just because it’s either too costly to keep track of all the regulations or they just don’t want any legal trouble down the road. And this is only due to the uncertainty as to what the government feels like banning / enforcing at some point in the future.

      • avatarRalph says:

        In MA, ammo sellers must have a MA license. Thus, MA prohibits out of state online sellers from selling ammo to MA residents. It’s not illegal for buyers to buy the product online, but the AG says it will prosecute online sellers. Midway, Cheaper Than Dirt and the rest won’t ship to a MA address.

        This was not always the case, but a local FFL who likes to charge high prices for his ammo ratted out all the online dealers and convinced the anti-gun AG to go along with him.

  13. avatarJimF says:

    Seems like now would be a good time to buy a store just across the county line to sell guns and ammo. It will be like those counties where fireworks are not allowed to be sold. Every 4th of July, the county is surrounded by temporary tents selling hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of fireworks to the good citizens with $0 in sales tax going back to the county.

  14. I have a problem with the process for passing laws. It seems fundamentally backwards to me to have a system where as long as you have the votes you can pass whatever law you want. Then after the fact, we are free to challenge the law in court. Questionable laws, or all laws, should be required to go through some judicial constitutionality review before being allowed to be passed in the first place.

    • avatarMoonshine says:

      “…should be required to go through some judicial constitutionality review before being allowed to be passed in the first place.”
      ——
      But then very few laws would be passed. Hold up…you may be on to something, here. ;)

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      This. All laws, at all levels of government, must pass a strict judicial scrutiny. With the current setup they can have as many illegal laws as they want and they’ll stay on the books as long as the public can’t get enough funding to get the courts to review it.

      We also need every candidate (congress, courts, and presidential) to pass a test regarding their understanding of the Constitution and how our government works (especially the checks and balances part) – we also need a test for understanding of economics as well. If they don’t pass the test, they’re not allowed to run. If they fail the test twice, they’re banned from ever running again.

    • avatarRalph says:

      Chewy, the idea is sound but courts are allowed to hear and render binding decisions only about “cases and controversies.” So to challenge a law, it must first be a law. In other words, courts are not advisory bodies. And even if they were, the opinion of one court can be overridden by a higher court.

      • avatarAharon says:

        “to hear and render binding decisions”

        Since the last presidential debate it is now illegal in America to use the words “binding, bound, and especially binder(s)”. Those words are part of the lexicon of ongoing patriarchal dominance, hatred, and oppression over women that must be banned to create a feminist-led just, fair, and non-sexist society.

        Thank you. This completes your re-education for today.

    • avatarBen says:

      That sounds great until the people appointed to make the call of a given laws constitutionality are just as corrupt as the people writing the laws in the first place. Or are appointed by them. Or paid by them. Or…you get the idea.

  15. $0.05 per bullet?!?!?! Holy smokeless powder Batman!

  16. avatarDarren says:

    Did she say how much of this money will line her own pockets, and those of her friends? Because that is what is going to happen, and what this is really about. Using the violence as an excuse to implement a tax, so she can collect cash for herself.

  17. avatarjkp says:

    “Expect a court challenge and plenty o’ media coverage.”

    It’s fun to talk about court challenges — but if the tax stamp for NFA weapons is constitutional, why would this tax be unconstitutional?

    (At least as far as the U.S. Constitution goes. I do not know the Illinois Constitution very well….)

  18. avatarPlumbump says:

    There’s only a couple shops I know of within county lines, and most people just go there for the range, they don’t stock much ammo, I think due to the already high taxes, I believe highest in the country. The people who will be hit by this hardest are city cops :)

  19. avatarGregolas says:

    A tax on guns & ammo that criminals buy on the black market or steal. Oh yeah, THIS will work!

  20. avatarBilly Wardlaw says:

    Instant black market…just ad car-trunk.

  21. avatartomrkba says:

    Five cents per cartridge today, five dollars tomorrow.

    We KNOW this will be abused by the state legislature. The pro-rights counties in Illinois need to make it very, very clear they will not collect the tax if it passes.

  22. avatarmikeinid says:

    This looks like simple grandstanding, as little or no legal sales of firearms and ammo occur in Kook county.

    If they were serious about the violence, they would provide free firearms and training to the law-abiding population. I’m holding my breath…

    and I turned really blue.

    I have to take a trip to the Windy battlefield soon. It’s ironic that one of the few places I feel the need for concealed carry, it is illegal.

  23. avatarfelix says:

    Its insane. I feel for you guys. There are some states, I just refuse to live in. Mostly the ones that dont honor my ccw. I dont think I could live like that anymore. Vote wisely come November. Its your only chance to make a difference in your own lives……

  24. avatarStephen says:

    Tennessee has had a tax on ammo for years, but it’s only 10 cents a container.

  25. avatarPascal says:

    What would the courts find? ObamaCare has shown us that govt. has unlimited power to tax and that the SCOTUS has told us if we don’t like it, to vote the bums out.

    There is zero change the tax will be eliminated because there is zero chance that board will be removed. They, in the liberal world, and soon in the national press, be held up on the alter as heros!

    I am still confused as to how much it takes before the public finally gets pissed off enough to be active to kick these guys out of office.

    • avatarjkp says:

      The thrust of your post is correct. There’s nothing to indicate that an excise tax on handguns or ammunition would be unconstitutional.

      Of course “the tax is constitutional” is not the same thing as saying “the tax is a good idea.”

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        Sure it’s unconstitutional – it violates the “shall not be infringed” part of the second amendment.

  26. avatarJoe Grine says:

    Sounds like a good way for mobsters to make more money: business at the old prohibition-era speak-easies boomed during prohibition. New marketing plan: underground stores selling “boot-leg” ammo.

  27. avatarDamon says:

    I love how the phrase “violence tax” presumes that every person who buys a gun and/or ammo is violent or going to use it in a violent way.

    Vote YES for the Violence Tax today! Promoting violence by keeping legal guns and ammunition off the streets and unobtainable!

  28. avatarengineear says:

    This is the best idea from the best(?)leader? Aren’t liberals the thinkers from the university classrooms? What are they thinking?…goes hand in hand with Pelosi…”we need to pass the bill so we can find out what’s in the bill!? Those voters will get what’s coming to them…stupid thinking. Stupid leaders. Stupid laws. More of us need to stand up to this stupidity. Sheesh

  29. avatarBrick says:

    “Hi, I’d like to purchase a gun today… Oh I won’t be using it for violence, can you fix that extra charge?”

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.