Welfare for Gun Owners: Turn In Your “Assault Rifle” for a Tax Break!

tumblr_kzwre0IV861qbunlyo1_500

“Gun owners would receive tax breaks for voluntarily turning in high-powered assault rifles under new legislation proposed Monday. The Support Assault Firearm Elimination and Education of our (SAFER) Streets Act expected to be reintroduced next week by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) would provide gun owners with an incentive to turn in their firearms to local police departments.” Wait. How do you get SAFER out of that? Isn’t that SAFEESA? Whatever, as thehill.com reports, DeLauro, a senior member of the Congressional Civilian Disarmament Caucus, would like to increase the national debt some more by giving willing (for now) gun owners a tax break for turning in their scary black rifles . . .

“Assault weapons are not about hunting, or even self-defense,” DeLauro said. “There is no reason on earth, other than to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, that anyone needs a gun designed for a battlefield.”

Do the gun-grabbers have six different pat justifications for their utopian anti-gun schemes that they rotate through each time they talk to the media? Or is that just me?

The legislation would provide up to $2,000 in tax credits for gun owners who voluntarily hand over assault weapons to their local police departments.

DeLauro’s bill lists the specific models that would qualify for the tax credit. The great news: if it’s enacted — and it has precisely zero chance in the current Congress — it would goose sales of a number of lower-end guns.

Think about it: a $2000 tax credit (that’s a credit, not a deduction) for turning in an SKS? That’s what, a profit of at least $1800? Sadly, you’d have to split the credit over two tax years, but still! Go Rosa, go!

[h/t DrVino]

 

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    I’ve got a broke-ass polymer AR that I would be more than happy to hock for a tax credit and go get a new one.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      $2000?

      Selling out way too cheap.

      Make it voluntary and $10,000 and we’ll talk about it…

      1. avatar Publius says:

        UP TO $2,000. I guarantee it’s something like $250 per scary looking weapon, with a limit of no more than 8 per year for tax credits. It’s how all tax credits work – they SOUND like a great deal, until you realize that you don’t get shit for it.

        1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

          The law as drafted states $2,000, half of the credit taken in the year the weapon is turned in, half in the next year.

          It only allows for the turn in of one weapon- unclear if that’s per year or a one time thing.

        2. avatar DonS says:

          It sounds like a crappy deal (“up to $2000”) when you just read the article. But, if you actually follow the link to the PDF of the proposed bill, you find that it says “EQUAL TO $2,000”, not “up to”.

    2. avatar Rad Man says:

      Trade in a new S&W M&P15 sport for 2K and then buy three more? Holy Unintended Consequences, Batman!

      1. avatar Ben says:

        Trade in just the lower receiver (or the upper) and keep all of the parts for spares. Even better.

      2. avatar Geoff PR says:

        ” Holy Unintended Consequences, Batman!”

        If there’s one thing Progressives excel at, its their remarkable myopia on unintended consequences.

        1. avatar Ben says:

          They know exactly what they’re doing. Looking for suckers to support this bill…

  2. avatar Templar says:

    So I can turn in a lower for 2k?

    1. avatar some_guy says:

      Turn in an 80% lower for $1600. Seems like a fair deal to me.

      1. avatar Adam says:

        An 80% isn’t a true firearm and thus shouldn’t be accepted. There are still plenty of cheap polymer full lowers to be had or I guess you could finish the 80% lowers yourself and then turn them in.

        1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

          Uh…. if this idiot gets this bill passed I’ll play the game. The folks selling unfinished lowers will make some money, I’ll make some money, and this idiot will be able to point to all the firearms being taken off the street. I wonder how long until it gets shut down.

          It says that lowers qualify (note in subparagraph (A) they refer to AR15s or copies. It states that the value of the credit is $2,000, I don’t see an “up to” qualifier, but that it will be split into two years, you can only turn in one qualifying weapon, and you must be the legal owner. I can’t figure out if you can turn in one per year, or just do this once.

          ‘‘(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L).

          But here’s an interesting bit– will this portion of the law have broader implications?
          ‘‘(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.
          20 ‘‘(

        2. avatar Sian says:

          “a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.”

          What manner of BS double-speak is this?

        3. avatar Ben says:

          Just trying to slip in some firearms regulation in the tax code. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain…

        4. avatar Ben says:

          Okay, I completely retract my previous statement that I’d sacrifice a lower. Definitely back door gun control after reading it through… and of course, reading the comments. Nothing good can come of this garbage. I don’t care how much they say they’ll pay. It’s another foot in the door in defining down firearms and trying to dictate the ‘sporting purpose’ definition.

      2. avatar mike oregon says:

        +P+ yes

  3. avatar Dustin says:

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAAAHAHAHAA![deepbreath]BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAAAHAHAHAA![deepbreath]BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAAAHAHAHAA![deepbreath]BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAAAHAHAHAA![deepbreath]BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAAAHAHAHAA![deepbreath]BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAAAHAHAHAA![deepbreath]BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAAAHAHAHAA![deepbreath]BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAAAHAHAHAA![deepbreath]BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAAAHAHAHAA![deepbreath]BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAAAHAHAHAA![deepbreath]BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAAAHAHAHAA![deepbreath]BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAAAHAHAHAA![deepbreath]BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAAAHAHAHAA!

    1. avatar jim says:

      Well said

    2. avatar Mark says:

      What he said.

  4. avatar General Zod says:

    I still want to know where everyone seems to be getting this “high powered” 5.56 that the left insists these guns use…

    1. avatar BlueBronco says:

      Maybe the are confusing AR10’s with AR15’s, lol.

    2. avatar jasetaro says:

      Hey, at least she didn’t go with the ever popular “high caliber” nonsense. 😀

    3. avatar Phil L says:

      This is the first test of any journalist covering firearms-related issues: If you don’t understand why – by definition – “high powered assault rifle” cannot be an accurate statement, you shouldn’t be writing about firearms.

    4. avatar Jim says:

      All I can find is the regular kind.

  5. avatar John L. says:

    I’d say “bankrupt the bastids but they’d just raise taxes…

    1. avatar sagebrushracer says:

      yup, and talk about unfunded liabilities…

    2. avatar doesky2 says:

      She’s going to keep trying for these tax credit ideas.
      She’s just mad that her previous tax credit idea got rejected.
      Connecticut just wasn’t as forward leaning as San Francisco was with their tax credits for strap-ons.

  6. avatar Slick says:

    Hey, idiot politicians!

    Instead of a “turn them in” tax credit, how about a “buy a gun, get training for free” or “buy a gun, get a tax credit towards a safe”.

    People are more apt to use free stuff than mandating.

    Encourage people to be safe without infringing on people’s rights.

    1. avatar Defens says:

      One of the nice perks the pro-gun interests were able to wrangle in Washington State is that gun safes are exempt from sales tax – that could amount to around $300 on a $3000 safe.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Same deal in MA — there’s no sales tax on gun safes, including handgun safes. But if you buy exactly the same safe from the same manufacturer that’s not labeled as a gun safe, you get bupkis.

      2. avatar Publius says:

        Good god, you guys have 10% sales tax? People in Ohio nearly rioted when they raised the sales tax from 6% to 6.5% about 10 years ago.

        1. avatar dph says:

          Depends on the county, most are between 8% and 9%, but we have no state income tax.

        2. avatar UpChuck.Liberals says:

          Kommieforniastan has Sales Tax ranging from 8 – 10% AND a State Income Tax. Heaven help you if you’re ‘lucky’ enough to own property.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          We have no income tax in TX, either, but mostly our sales tax runs around 6-8% depending on county. OTOH, we have really disgusting property taxes. Each state disguises its taxes in the attempt to fool its citizens, themselves viewed as fools. Just telling the suckers what needs to be funded, and how we propose to fund it, is way too honest, we cannot even face the concept.

        4. avatar T-DOG says:

          Yes, This is how you pay for a utopia. Now you know the reason why they need a minimum wage of 15 bucks an hour to survive.

          6.5% goes to the state of Washington.
          2.6% goes to the City of Seattle.
          0.4% goes to the Regional Transit Authority (RTA).
          0.1% goes to the Transportation Benefit District.
          These 4 rates add up to the 9.6% combined rate for the city of Seattle.

          But we have no income tax. They have been trying to get both income and sales tax the past few years. But it is a non starter with most people and they would have to change the state constitution to allow for a income tax.

  7. avatar Vhyrus says:

    I would build 5 dirt cheap ATI lowers for $400 a piece and turn them all in.

    1. avatar Grindstone says:

      LGS sells Anderson lowers for $50 each. I’m sure if this law passed, it would spur quite an increase in sales!

    2. avatar styrgwillidar says:

      You can only turn in one. This isn’t like claiming you’re supporting 45 dependent children overseas where you get a credit for each one… resulting in you receiving a large rebate.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Can’t my wife turn one in? I will mail several to family members all over the country! Let’s set a goal of 100 million turned in, for a total tax reduction of 200 BILLION dollars. Think anybody would notice? It’s free money, why would anyone care?

        1. avatar Zero says:

          Sadly there is no proof that this will work, it does not differentiate between a refundable and non refundable credit, so it is safe to assume it is non refundable. This means that only people who owe taxes would see money taken off of how much they owe, anyone who gets a refund would simply have donated(without being able to write it off) a rifle to the fed.

        2. avatar Ben says:

          Refundable and Non-refundable tax credits don’t have anything to do with whether you’re getting a refund…

        3. avatar Zero says:

          You seemed to have missed the point of my comment. I am saying that if you get a refund at the end of the year of $345 plus a nonrefundable credit of $1000 for turning in the rifle, you still only get a refund of 345 dollars. If it was a refundable credit(doubtful) you would get $1345 back. If you owe the fed $700 and you have a nonrefundable credit of $1000 you no longer owe the fed any money, but you do not get that $300 dollars.

        4. avatar Ben says:

          It’s based on your total tax BILL, not your refund. If it’s refundable, it can make your tax bill negative. If it’s nonrefundable, it can only reduce your tax bill to zero. If your tax bill was $500, a $1000 nonrefundable tax credit will only reduce your tax bill to zero, while a refundable tax credit can wind up with the IRS paying you $500. If your tax bill was already zero, you’d get nothing with a nonrefundable credit, while with a refundable credit, you’d get $1000 back. Doesn’t matter if you’re getting a refund or paying on April 15th, it’s changes your overall tax bill.

        5. avatar ropingdown says:

          Yep, Ben. And I was assuming this was going to be a refundable tax credit, just another politician trying to stuff some gov’t cash into the pockets of her poorer constituents.

          I really don’t understand why local politicians try so hard to hide the cost of government, playing the sales tax versus RE versus income tax game. After all, Americans know the federal government has racked up 18 trillion in debt, and nobody seems too concerned.

        6. avatar Ben says:

          Well, who knows if it’ll ever pass, anyway. If it even has a chance, it might be a refundable tax credit, but it’ll have a phase-out at, say, $30K or so, so they can say they’re ‘helping the poor’ and ‘keeping them safe’ by getting ONE ‘firearm’ (receiver, really) away from them. If you make $50K per year, there probably won’t be any tax credit at all. This will still let them say that they’re sticking it to the rich guys, and keeping the poor safe. Whatever. It’ll get so screwed up it’ll be unrecognizable and useless if it ever sees the light of day.

        7. avatar DonS says:

          “Refundable and Non-refundable tax credits don’t have anything to do with whether you’re getting a refund”

          Maybe not what you’re referring to, but…

          Non-refundable credits reduce your total tax (1040 line 63). Those can never bring your total tax below zero.

          Refundable credits count as “payments” (e.g. EIC). The sum of all payments (1040 line 74) is subtracted from total tax (line 63). If the subtraction results in a negative number, you’ve overpaid and get a refund. Even if you made no federal income tax payments during the year, refundable credits will result in a “refund” if they’re greater than your total tax.

          The text of the bill says “Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code”. Subpart A is “Nonrefundable Personal Credits”. Thus, the credit created by this bill would reduce your total tax on line 63, but would not be counted as a payment on line 74. But, for anyone who has a “total tax” of $1000 or more for two consecutive years (pretty much anyone who works for a living), this credit should be worth $2000.

        8. avatar Ben says:

          Agreed, DonS. My POINT is that whether you’re getting a refund or not at the end of the year has nothing to do with your total tax bill. The only difference between a nonrefundable and refundable tax credit is if it will make your tax bill go negative. If your tax bill is more than $1000 for the year, it would make no difference whether this credit would be nonrefundable or refundable. If your tax bill is less than $1000, it’d make a difference. However, I think that what would make more of a difference will be the phaseout. I’d almost guarantee you that if you make $100K a year, they won’t give you $2000 to give up one lower receiver. I’d bet they won’t do it for someone that makes $50K a year… So the nonrefundable/refundable and phaseout issues will really be spun into a rich/poor class issue, as always.

        9. avatar DonS says:

          The text of the bill contains the total text to be inserted into the “Nonrefundable Personal Credits” subpart, and doesn’t mention any phaseouts, maximum income, etc. like other sections in that subpart do (e.g. “Child tax credit”).

        10. avatar Ben says:

          Yep, I see that now. Betcha they’ll have phaseouts and maximum income before it ever makes it to law (if it ever does). Shocking that it’s not refundable, since that would really ‘benefit’ the low income sector (no tax liability, but turn in a $40 stripped receiver, and get $1000 added to their ‘refund’ for two years). Liberals’ heads would explode if they saw people making $150K to $200K per year getting $2000 tax credits for dumping junk and unusable (stripped receivers) guns in turn-ins. It’ll never happen.

  8. avatar DonS says:

    At least she’s honest about what she really wants:
    “Firearm Elimination”

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      But is she honest about letting us know her IQ? I’m thinking pretty solid 2 digits.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        I’m thinking pretty solid low 2 digits.

        FIFY

  9. avatar John L. says:

    FWIW the bill also lists some pistols and shotguns that would qualify.

  10. avatar tdiinva says:

    It’s a brilliant Idea. I am all for it. Take a $1000 AR and turn into a $1000 AR, a nice handgun or two. It’s magic!

  11. avatar Parnell says:

    Do these dumbasses even have a clue? The decision as to what constitutes a “assaults rifle” will be determined by the AG. That moron doesn’t know one end of a rifle from the other! I suggest they recruit Caroline McCarthy for that job so she can investigate “the shoulder thingy that goes up”.

    1. avatar John L. says:

      Oh no no no … The bill spells out what can be turned in for the credit. Check out the text. It includes:

      ‘‘(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L).

      So your standard $100 AR lower should also qualify.

      1. avatar JD says:

        $100 lowers? I have seen them as low as $42.50 on the retail level and under $37 dealer cost since Jan. May be worth investing in a 3d printer and crank them out by the dozens.

        1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

          To sell to others to qualify for the rebate? The bill as written only allows a person to turn in one with the credit split across two tax years. You’d need to be a manufacturer- but– I’m sure if this were to pass every lower receiver manufacturer, distributor and retailer would make sure the ability to turn it around to the government, as insurance should you change your mind about building up a weapon, will be well publicized.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          WTF? Sell them? GIVE them away! One for you = $1900 profit, buy 19 more and give them to family and friends. The goal here is bankrupt the government on this silly broad’s dime.

  12. avatar AllAmerican says:

    Good thing the Democrats don’t have control of congress. Because the next time they do, this and several other bills like it are coming down the line. As reported by TTAG, there is several hardline gun control bills being introduced by democrats to congress, knowing that they will all fail at the hands of the GOP. Because right now the plan isn’t to pass them, but play politics. Try to pass them all now, let them fail, then suddenly bust them all back out again in one massive bill after the next tragedy, when there is a democrat controlled congress. “We tried to prevent this! Now look! Look at what the evil republicans have done!”

    We must at all cost avoid a DNC majority in the government again.

    But, oh, wait, they’re all just the same party! It’s both parties! They’re both evil! EVIL!

    If you vote for any member of the DNC, you are apart of the problem.

    1. avatar Phil LA says:

      If the Dems take Congress the tax credit will be applied to your neighbors for turning you in.

  13. avatar Rand says:

    I guess since my Ar15 only generates about 1300 ft. Lbs. of energy, it probably wouldn’t pass muster as a high powered rifle. Maybe if I added a bayonet lug to my .30-30………

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      Remington 750/30-06 + 20 round mag = a much more powerful weapon than an AR but it’s just a Fudd gun.

  14. avatar BlueBronco says:

    ~ 320 murders are committed each year by all types of rifles each year per the FBI-UCR. Yet this knuckle head Rosa DeLauro thinks this is going to accomplish something. The language sounds like something written by ignorant wonks for ignorant wonks.

    1. I would like to know just how one is to protect ones self if we don’t have at least the same weapons as the forces that will be trying to take us to the FEMA camp that are spread out around the country? For those of you that are too stupid to believe that this will not happen, please feel free to Google: Jade Helm ’15 and also UN agenda 21.

  15. avatar Red in Texas says:

    I thought Harry Potter was dead?

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      I thought that Moe was dead. Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck.

      1. avatar Vhyrus says:

        I don’t know who you two are talking about. That is definitely Velma from Scooby Doo up there… and she hasn’t aged well.

        1. avatar dh34 says:

          Definitely Velma all growed up.

      2. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “I thought that Moe was dead. Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck.”

        1. avatar Fuque says:

          I thought it was Woody Allen coming out drag..

        2. avatar CTstooge says:

          Thanks, I needed that

  16. avatar skiff says:

    aka Rosa Klebb

  17. avatar PeterW says:

    I love how politicians talk about “High Powered Assault Weapons” the way a 9-year old talks about “race cars,” with a similar level of intelligent discernment.

    1. avatar Noah says:

      I think we have a new slogan.

  18. avatar DBM says:

    Well there goes my plan to turn in my old worthless Remington 870. Its not covered. BUT I will gladly go out and buy an old sks to turn in.

    1. avatar michael kennedy says:

      Please don’t do that. There are only two ways to get a $200 sks now days, one is go to Canada and the other is to buy such a beat up, pitted POS that it’s likely to blow up when you shoot it.

      1. avatar Robert W. says:

        Sounds like he would be doing someone a favor then.

        He gets $2000, minus the $200 for a pitted out POS SKS that would blow up in someone else’s face.
        The law doesn’t say to need to demonstrate firing to get the tax credit.

        1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

          The law provides for turning in just frame or receiver, as it’s currently written.

    2. avatar Another Robert says:

      With that definition of “pistol grip”, my old Ted Williams semi-auto bird-hunting gun might qualify. Even tho the magazine only holds 2 rounds.

  19. avatar John says:

    Maybe it should go unsaid, but the gun grabbers keep tipping their hands with dead end bills like this. A little preview of the next dem- controlled congress – or daily life in the blue states.

    Gotta love the new attention “forward grips” keep getting. One of these Mensa members or their staff must have seen one on the cover of Call of Duty or something and had a panic attack.

    1. avatar Grindstone says:

      No joke, I had an anti inform me that having a pistol grip on an AR makes it more accurate when firing from the hip.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Did you ask how they knew that?

        1. avatar Zero says:

          Milsim and Airsoft… Duh

        2. avatar Grindstone says:

          I don’t recall my response, but I imagine he must’ve figured it from a weapons “upgrade” from a video game (they almost never get anything right).

          I did the airsoft thing for a while and most of them knew plenty about guns. In fact, I would say airsoft is a fantastic gateway drug into gun ownership.

    2. avatar Robert W. says:

      Well duh!

      15% decrease in Horizontal Recoil, and 25% increase in Hip-Fire accuracy.

      You don’t get vertical recoil reduction though. For that you need the Angled Fore-grip, and if you follow the meta builds, VFG is the way to go.

  20. avatar James69 says:

    you could prob take any junk in. How would they know any better?? Also no tampon earings?

  21. avatar Sammy says:

    And what plans does IRS have for these “Assault Rifles”? Just askin’.

    1. avatar James69 says:

      To arm them for free!

      1. avatar Publius says:

        Nope, in typical US government stupidity, they’ll give them to a terrorist group that currently hates another terrorist group we also hate. Then in 10-20 years, those same terrorists will become our new enemy and those guns will be firing at us. Wash, rinse, repeat.

        1. ^this. With a slight correction:

          *3 to 4 years

          (See ISIS)

  22. avatar JeffR says:

    I wish one could still get an SKS for $200.

    1. avatar James69 says:

      +1

  23. avatar Anonymous says:

    The legislation would provide up to $2,000 in tax credits for gun owners who voluntarily hand over assault weapons to their local police departments.

    This sounds great. I could make some money out of the connecticut taxpayers on this one. Start buying rifles that can be construed as a scary black “assault” thing – turn it in – and Ka-Ching! – money. Even my AR’s are much less than $2000.

    After the police departments get overwhelmed with “Assault” guns. They can auction them off on the cheap! Win, Win, Win. Spend $50 on a lower with a serial number, swap out all the parts with the police auctioned item and sell them back to the police station for another $2000.00 in tax credit. Sounds great.

  24. avatar JasonM says:

    When these people say “assault weapon”, don’t they usually mean any semi-auto?

    If so, I’d love to buy a bunch of high-points for $150 and sell them to the government for $2000. The more we increase the debt, the sooner the unsustainable nanny state/security state collapses.

    1. avatar PeterW says:

      “assault weapon” is politi-speech for “armed citizen”

    2. avatar FedUp says:

      There you go. And support USA manufacturing jobs in the process.

    3. avatar John L. says:

      Hi-point carbines are in fact on the list.

      You’ll need to read the billnto see if the pistols fit one of the descriptions, however, as Hi-Point pistols weren’t, iirc, called out specifically.

  25. avatar Grindstone says:

    High-powered assault rifles? I don’t have any. All of my AR-15s shoot 5.56mm

  26. avatar Red in Texas says:

    This is the type of legislation that would be passed after, or along with a new AWB. Don’t kid yourself into thinking there would be a way to “stick it to the man”.

    1. avatar Ben says:

      If they were going to ban them, I doubt they’d pay that much for them. This is just silly, though. It’ll never get through.

      1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

        Any lawyers around here know anything about the implication of getting the following paragraph passed along with this law? Does it provide some kind of legal basis for the BATFE to define ‘sporting pursposes’?

        ‘‘(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.”

        1. avatar Xanderbach says:

          What it means is this- “A weapon, when rubbed with army magic, is no longer a sporting weapon, even when used primarily by owners in sporting events.” So this means the .22 bolt actions used by the military biathlon competitions no longer have sporting purposes. Nor do 1911s, Remington 700s, Glocks, etc. Basically any firearm the military has looked at is no longer a sporting weapon. Since the bill doesn’t specify WHICH military, it could include Enfields, Mosins and any firearm based on the Mauser 98 action. Really, it says based on a firearm designed for the military, so theoretically that’s all of them. Even the ones designed specifically for “sporting purposes.”

    2. avatar CentralIL says:

      Yep.

  27. avatar Chris. says:

    “A shotgun with a revolving cylinder. ”

    Double-U Tee FFFFFF!

    1. avatar PeterW says:

      In California that would be the Taurus Judge and the Smith & Wesson Governor, them being .410 loading short-barrel shotguns by CA definition.

  28. avatar Ben says:

    Wow. I’ve got a few lower receivers that I paid $40 for. That’d be quite the profit… Hope it passes.

    1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

      Law only provides for turning in one. Now, you could certainly sell those lowers to other folks to get a similar tax credit for more than the $40 you paid.

  29. avatar Don from CT says:

    She should call it the SmithandWessonRugerDPMS financial support bill.

    Can you think of all the people going out and buying M&P Sport, SR15, and DPMS Oracles (each manufacturer’s lowest cost model at around $600) and turning them in.

    The Sport would become the best selling gun in the industry overnight.

    1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

      No. Why would they do that? If this bill passes as written than can buy a lower for ~100 and make 1900.

  30. avatar arsh says:

    is this for all states, because I’d gladly turn in my tantal for an AR and a different 74 to replace the tantal.

  31. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Beats the heck out of the deal I got at the last voluntary turn in!
    The stupid is strong with that lady.

  32. avatar KingSarc48625 says:

    You folks have it all wrong! Just send in some empty plastic bags and tell them that they are full of those ghost guns from California!

  33. avatar JohnO says:

    “High-powered” is the catch here. High powered like .30-06? 7mm magnum? .50BMG?
    Surely not 7.62×39 or .223. These are not high powered rounds.
    Like when anti’s say they support “legal guns,” what they mean are the guns left over once the anti’s have banned everything.

    1. avatar JohnO says:

      Or maybe they mean “High-Powered” as in .22lr hyper velocity, .357 magnum, .44 magnum, or .30-30. This is me rolling my eyes.

  34. avatar emfourty gasmas says:

    That would destroy the used gun market, and probably increase the price of new “Assault rifles” by a significant amount.

    1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

      No it wouldn’t. The law provide the tax credit for just the receiver or frame. Here’s a thought, it just states:

      “‘‘(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L).” {note- (A) include AR15 and copies thereof}

      Doesn’t specify serialized receiver- so, could you just turn in an upper receiver for an AR? Your guess is as good as mine, and maybe better.

  35. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    I’m in for a $1800 profit…so who can we make Curly,Shemp or Larry?

  36. avatar DickDanger says:

    I see no one in this comments section being realistic. It says “up to $2,000”, that doesn’t mean they’ll give you 2K for your low-end AR. They’d probably give you $200 and tell you to deal with it.

    1. avatar DonS says:

      The text of the bill doesn’t say “up to $2000”. It says:
      “there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter an amount equal to $2,000”.
      ***equal to***, not “up to”.

  37. avatar B Fitts says:

    Yall are all missing a key fact here. If there was a $2,000.00 Tax Credit for any AR what do you thing gun stores would start selling the biggest POS AR’s on the Market for… You Guessed it Close to $2,000.00. just another attempt at backdoor gun control through raising prices to keep it out of the hands of “the Lower Classes”.

    1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

      I don’t think so, because it provides for only turning in one weapon, which could be just:

      “‘‘(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L).”

      with subparagraph (A) listing AR15 and copies. I don’t think anyone will pay $2,000 for a POS when they can just get a lower (or perhaps upper receiver since it doesn’t specify serialized receiver) or finish an 80% and turn it in, that’s my plan.

  38. avatar mlloyd says:

    I have a really tough time with the extent of the ridiculousness of this. For one, I can NOT take her serious about ANYTHING other than baking a cake, knitting, or cat grooming.

  39. avatar explainist says:

    correct me If I am mistaken…

    were the M14s, M1s, Krags, Springfields, Mausers, Enfields, Arisakas and a dozen other guns not military surplus? Actual factual battle rifles used in previous conflicts just before they came on the surplus market?

    do they not fire cartridges with more energy that 5.56 NATO?

    where was the panic when they were sold?

    1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

      She’s got you covered- some like the M1 are listed, others are covered by the following:

      ‘‘(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.”

      1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

        Sorry, forgot to comment– that’s some twisted logic in that last sentence-

        ” ….a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.”

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          That’s called “closing the 3-Gun loophole.” According to the ATF, 3-Gun is not a sport.

  40. avatar GuntotinDem says:

    This one is pretty scary in my book. “We tried to buy them from the law abiding gun owner. We bargained in good faith giving them the highest value we could ascertain. We were met with Fraud and non compliance. We have no other option now than order the immediate surrender…”

    But no one is after your guns they say…

  41. avatar styrgwillidar says:

    Ok– should the NRA support this with the provision that subparagraph (L) is eliminated? I could use a 2K tax credit (less the ~50 for a lower).

  42. avatar Justin_GA says:

    I think this is great! I can print a AR lower with my 3D printer(The printer does not have the capability to print a real working lower….the printed plastic would probably break if dropped) My cost to print with electricity included would be about $15-$20. I’d have to sand blast it and spray paint it flat black to make it look scary. And even though it’s a POS according to the ATF it is defined as a firearm if it can fire a one bullet. Even tough the thing would shatter after one round….I’m really digging this tax break! Basically I get money to buy a gun/guns every year!

    1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

      Well… I’m worried about subparagraph (L) which might give the BATFE legal covering for declaring all weapons designed for the military as not suitable for sporting purposes and what that might lead to…

  43. avatar Pascal says:

    This is proof that Democrats only care about image versus actually saving lives or helping the country.

    Take that $2000 and instead of having people turning in some scary black guns allow gun owners to use the money to purchase a 100% Made in the USA Gun Safe. Allows someone to take up to $2000 credit since not everyone can afford a $2000 safe but they can purchase smaller units

    This would help with safe storage that nobody can argue with and help the economy by creating jobs.

    This is all politics so she can put it in her newsletter and nothing else. Hopefully she will be permanently visiting Mrs Brady some day soon.

  44. avatar Zero says:

    This seems like it is a one time deal.
    ‘‘(d) TERMINATION.—This section shall not apply
    with respect to any weapon surrendered during a taxable
    year beginning more than 2 years after the date of the
    enactment of the Support Assault Firearms Elimination
    and Reduction for our Streets Act.’’.

    Also this is a credit and it does not state that it is refundable, so unless you owe taxes it is safe to assume you would be out a rifle and never see any benefit.

    1. avatar Pascal says:

      Yep, and I am sure that is the way it was intended so they can dupe the stupid.

  45. avatar GunTotinDem says:

    No more capes !!! There I said it. Why do I see a whole bunch of trouble with guys waltzing in to their local cop shop with an AR. Swatting by proxy?

    1. avatar Zero says:

      Maybe Moms Demand Action set this up, they have been known to encourage people to call the police on the guy getting coffee with his open carry pistol so that person gets killed.

  46. avatar Bobiojimbo says:

    How did they get SAFER out of SAFEESA? The Support Assault Firearm Elimination and Education of our (SAFER) Streets Act was previously known as the Support Assault Firearm Elimination and Reeducation (SAFER) of our Streets Act, but after market brand testing, the creators of this act found Reeducation was disliked, so they ditched it for the more favorable Education. They kept the acronym despite the change, after all, who wouldn’t for the SAFER Streets Act? (Completely sarcastic, and facetious, BTW).

  47. avatar AnotherOne says:

    Wow .. I’m sure there is a whole bunch of tied to this, but if not, I’m in – it’s like cash for clunkers part 2!

  48. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    Pure arbitrage. If it ever passed, I’d be all over it, repeatedly, and with feeling!

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Maybe it’s like Highlander — “There can be only one.”

  49. avatar Gatha58 says:

    Another way for a crazy left wing Dem to spend our tax money. What the heck will this really accomplish. Come on, is this lady brain dead? People will turn in their old worn out guns and the government will probably destroy them. The same folks that got the credit will go out and buy a better, newer gun and laugh all the way to the bank. And our National debt just keeps climbing. Who keeps voting for idiots like this ? They must all be dumber than she is. OMG, what a totally STUPID idea.

    1. avatar DonS says:

      “Another way for a crazy left wing Dem to spend our tax money”

      Probably the best idea any “crazy left wing Dem” has yet had for spending our tax money… $2000 in reduced federal income tax, spread over two tax years, to buy new guns (or feed the ones we already have).

  50. avatar CV76 says:

    A slave to a Democrat, I shall NEVER be.

  51. avatar FortWorthColtGuy says:

    Two issues…

    1. How can silencers be legal when they label any gun with a threaded barrel an “assault “weapon and try to ban them? How can something be legal but you are not allowed to own a host weapon for it?

    2. What is the obsession with “sporting purposes”, when the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with sport?

  52. avatar btroll says:

    Why is she knife-handing me?

  53. avatar John says:

    All of you hoping for free money are no better than the leftiest of the statists.

    Free sh*t is how they keep the low information voters on the ranch.

    They’ve finally found your price. A few hundred bucks so you think you got a deal, and you’re counted among the “common-sense” supporters. The slightest whiff that any gun owners approve, and Katie-bar-the-door. It’ll be one of those “have to pass the bill to see what’s in it” deals, and you’re on record as in favor of it.

    (I used to be a cynic, but my optimism has waned of late.)

  54. avatar gsnyder says:

    She claims to be an American and fights against the Constitution? So she implies taxpaying lawful Americans are criminals in wait? Yes, this is exactly what she implies. Of course don’t tell her the people she is trying to address are seriously ill, probably don’t pay taxes, and certainly would not turn over their firearms. Can we take up a tax break fund to buy her ticket to Guatemala? Live there a while and tell me if you would feel safer armed or not? She does not belong in her job, she is a traitor pure and simple.

  55. avatar neiowa says:

    Why do libtard broads willfully chose to be ignorant and FUGGLY.

  56. avatar Ralph says:

    Thanks, but I’ll pass.

  57. avatar Tucker says:

    PLEASE! Please Please Please pass this bill!!! I’ll have that new ACOG and HK VP9 ive been saving up for in a heartbeat. I’m going to go write my congressmen. Like now.

    1. avatar John says:

      Careful what you wish for. You’ll go on record as being in favor of that”common-sense” nonesense and the bill will end up banning bullets while you get your couple hundred bucks of free government stuff.

      Why don’t you just go sign up for an obamaphone?

    2. avatar Ben says:

      Stop looking at the immediate goodies, and read a little further. If this bill passes, bad stuff will be on the horizon.

  58. avatar John Howes says:

    I don’t need an “assault” rifle? Really? I can’t think of a better weapon to have in my hands when things go bump in the night.

  59. avatar paulWTAMU says:

    Take 2-3 New Frontier Poly Lowers

    Turn in for 6k.

    Buy one kickass AR10 with a nice scope and a ton of ammo.

    WOOHOO!

    1. avatar Ben says:

      Only good for ONE item to turn in. It’s all a ruse, anyway. Read page 7, paragraph L. THAT paragraph is the goal of this entire bill, to pave the way for a ban of all black “assault weapons” because they don’t meet a “sporting purpose” designation.

  60. avatar JJ48 says:

    “There is no reason on earth, other than to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, that anyone needs a gun designed for a battlefield.”

    If this is the justification, shouldn’t the Mosin-Nagant be on that list, as well? As much as I love that rifle, I could probably be persuaded to part with it and just buy a new one if the price were right…

    Also, I am 100% in favor of the name “Support Assault Firearm Elimination and Education of our Streets Act”. I am sick and tired of these uneducated streets in Ohio changing their names every 200 feet. What firearm elimination has to do with street education is beyond me, but I definitely support the latter.

  61. avatar Preston B. says:

    “SAFER”? There’s no ” R” in there, just call it the “SAFE Act”, it’ll fail miserably.

  62. avatar Madcap_Magician says:

    Are you guys crazy? M&P Sports? SKS rifles?

    The real money will be in turning in AR lowers or Hi-Point carbines!

  63. avatar ShawnM says:

    If the left actually cared about it, they would be offering a tax credit for firearm safes. If they really wanted to make a change, they’d bring training into the schools where they once taught the responsibility of firearms to students, in a course much like drivers ed, or sex ed. Sadly, they don’t care. and would rather spend 10 times the money bad mouthing law abiding citizens than purchasing safes on the behalf of those who own firearms would cost.

    1. avatar Ben says:

      The only thing they care about is suckering gun owners into supporting this bill. By passing it, every black rifle will categorically be defined as having no “sporting purpose”, opening it up to being banned in the future. Read page 7, paragraph (L).

  64. avatar Keith says:

    Typical politician spending OPM like an idiot. Moves like this should disqualify her from office. The MD county we live in offered $100 per for firearms, up to 3 turned in. The line was long and filled with junk. We turned in 3 rust buckets and put the $300 towards a new 9mm. Children should not hold public office.

    1. avatar Ben says:

      The money isn’t half of the damage this bill would cause in the long term.

  65. avatar C. Coyan says:

    A door that should never be opened. Think!

  66. avatar James says:

    Here is the problem. How many people actually own “ASSAULT RIFLES”? I own AR 15s which is not classified as “assault” and any normal person who actually KNOWS anything about guns, is that the AR STANDS FOR “ARMALITE MODEL 15 RIFLE” NOT ASSAULT RIFLE. THE BUNCH OF LEFTIST RETARDED NIGGER MUSLIM LOVING NON AMERICAN PIECES OF SHIT!!!!

  67. avatar Don says:

    Turn your assault rifle into me and I will give you $150 in Cash. Worth more then the $2000 in tax credits you will get.

  68. avatar Ben says:

    Interesting… $150 is worth more than $2000?

  69. avatar Greg says:

    So walk in with a WASR, end up with a FAL? Sign me up! Seriously though, this is an emotional knee-jerk reaction to a tragedy and is totally wrong-headed and should be stopped.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email