Let’s say you’re a dedicated anti-gun politician. Things haven’t been really going your way in recent years. Not only are Americans are buying more guns than ever before, but at the same time that the number of guns increased by 50 percent to over 300 million, violent crime dropped to historic levels. That kinda makes it hard to argue that the problem is, you know, guns. What’s worse, the public seems to be catching on to all that. So what’s an anti-civil rights nanny state legislator to do? Simple! Make it more expensive for all those psycho gun nuts to buy their instruments of death . . .
A new bill to reduce gun violence aims to hit would-be weapons buyers where it hurts — in the wallet.
U.S. Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez is introducing a bill that would slap every gun sale with a $100 tax, and then use the extra money on anti-violence and mental health programs.
It’s less about anti-violence and mental health programs than it is about making gun ownership incrementally more difficult. That which you tax, you discourage. And as the House civilian disarmament caucus sees it, anything that results in fewer guns sold is a step in the right direction.
Velazquez represents New York’s 12th Congressional district covering parts of Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens, so hopeless public stunts intended to show she’s “doing something” about the problem of guns aren’t only to be expected, they’re part of the job description. While having no chance of passage, the bill will attract the usual suspects as co-sponsors and it got her some good press so mission accomplished.
If any logic can be applied to this, it means that she proposes to charge $100 per murder? And they expect to cover the federal debt with that?
My first thought was “those tax records would provide a great way to identify gun owners and to create a gun registry.
Why do the progressives always try to load the taxes on the people who have the least money?
Most gun control measures were initially put into place to keep blacks from being able to defend themselves.
This is actually an attractive idea . You know the minute you put a big tax on something , the Feds start pushing the sale of the product being taxed . $100.00 tax per firearm and uncle Sam might start subsidizing the advertising of guns .
I look forward to the class-action lawsuit on what would surely be considered a “Poll Tax” type fee on a confirmed civil right.
Pay attention here, Velazquez: study up on Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966) WRT UNconstitutional taxing of a constitutional right.
Thanks for the specific reference; I knew one of you smarter folks would have it handy… 🙂
Well. it seems to me that the SCOTUS upheld the NFA, which is a tax on the purchase and possession of certain classes of arms, and I don’t see anyone lining up to overturn Miller, so odds are..what? That it passes muster because taxes are not infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, they only make it more expensive (said the Miller Court)? In fact, the US Attorney General at the time said that they had to go the taxing route because banning machine guns would implicate Second Amendment rights, but a tax would not…..So it is better that this does not pass in the first place, rather than suffer through five to ten years of litigation with an uncertain outcome.
Consider: voting is not a Constitutional right. Unless you’re an elector to the Electoral College.
Best read as “they make it up as they go along”. Like another poster pointed out above, an enumerated right *CAN* be taxed (to the extent a POTUS decision legitimizes “can”), whereas a non-Constitutional right has been deemed beyond taxation (because, at least in that case, they deemed ‘the power to tax is the power to destroy’). Again, to sum: they can (and will) make it up. As they go along.
We can’t enumerate every way the SCOTUS is F’d up too. Just remember to tell your grandkids. And, if you ever happen to see any of SCOTUS (oppressor)s running for their life, trip them.
There’s video of Todd Vandermyne(?), NRA’s lobbyist in Illinois, telling a group of lawmakers that a high fee for a carry license is like a poll tax. We pay $150, plus service fees, for a license. If we want our license in under 90 days we have to pay for digital finger prints, there’s something like a $27 fee to the state to send those in and that’s just the fee to the state. Plus the fee for the class, which can be upwards of $300 bucks on the high end. I think all in my license cost me $350-400. Oh, but it’s good for 5 years. So the poll tax argument has been done.
It’s like cigarettes. They’re not so bad that you can’t pay liberal (D)ems to not take them away from you completely.
Said it a few too many times, but it’s still true, liberal (D)bags from a pissant blue state aren’t going to stop dictating to you until you stop them.
Can you say “ghost guns”, anyone? As long as there are folks who can make them at home, this would be unenforceable…
It isn’t meant to be enforced against, you know, actual criminals.
Another attempt to price people out of guns which leads back to the original (racist) roots of gun control.
It sounds like an inadvertent attempt to boost the private/underground/no-paper-trail market in firearms in the same manner that this president’s tenure has stimulated the legal market in firearms.
Infringement is a sanctioned event on the evil liberal blue house of (D) left. It should be an event that’s “SANCTIONED” by Conservatives on the right and their silence too us duly noted
Making Ghost Guns is not illegal unless you add stuff to them to make them “non-compliant” with your local bans, or unless you are already a Prohibited Person.
Funny, libs applaud when illegals march in our streets and demand a ban on the term “illegal”. But when a bona fide citizen wants to produce an item whose right to keep and bear, that person better not be prohibited. Sh_t I’d sooner supply felons weapons over supporting anti-Constitutional a-hole neighbors needing jobs. At least a felon won’t tax you for your right to give up yoyr rights, and they are more forthcoming of their opinion and desire to support law and society.
Every gun I own but my 10/22 and that old Heritage Arms 22 revolver just went missing , Oh well , here’s my $200.00 .
luv ya .
Can we tax her core constituents for every parasite they birth?
Well they put a per head tax on you. That close enough?
How about passing a civics class before you can sit in congress?
NY/NYC dictators take theirs @ GITMO
So she’d like to restrict firearms only to those wealthy enough to afford them? Why does she hate poor people?
There you go; more of this, please.
And what is this “You are posting comments too quickly” warning crap?
Now we have a “rate of speech” restriction here?
“And what is this “You are posting comments too quickly” warning crap?”
As I mentioned a few days ago, its to throttle spam ‘bots from flooding TTAG’s comment section.
Being a very high volume gun blog, TTAG is a very attractive target for spammer scum…
Thanks for the explanation. First time I’d seen it, but probably also the first time I’d composed and posted two replies in less than 3 minutes…
She hates poor people because her young male constituents just won’t stop shooting each other (and random others, women and children). She and her sort have utterly failed to LEAD their constituents, to teach them a righteous culture of respect, study, and hard work. So she and the others have in fact GIVEN UP. They can thing of nothing else but to scream “tax all guns, register all guns, restrict all guns, confiscate all guns” and so forth. She thinks she’s saving face. No. She’s just admitting by her words that she can’t lead her people, help make rules for them, convince them to rat out the violent ones. Therefore here constituent district will always be hell. Not our fault, madame.
Funny, her constituents are showing up here in VT committing a highly disproportionate rate of drug and violent crime…I say let’s tax them when convicted (or maybe let’s just tax us for making an honest living – oh, wait a second)
Let’s hope that doesn’t get any traction.
That’s a pretty dramatic increase in the price of a gun.
Once again proving that they are clueless about the root causes.
Any other Civil Rights they want to heavily tax?
“Any other Civil Rights they want to heavily tax?”
Like the fee for the permit to demonstrate (free speech, don’t you know) in the District of Columbia?
Like the fee charged by NYC (and many states) to keep a pistol in your home?
Gee, lemme think, gotta be more of them…
If they can make the tax $100, they can make the tax $1,000 or 10,000.
Reminds me of Dan Pat Moynihan’s plan to tax some ammunition ‘out of existence’:
Moynihan to introduce plan to tax some ammunition ‘out of existence’
November 04, 1993
By John Fairhall, Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON — Demanding action to stop the country’s epidemic of violence, a powerful Senate chairman declared yesterday that his panel would make handgun control an integral part of health care reform by drastically increasing the tax on bullets.
Finance Committee Chairman Daniel Patrick Moynihan said the panel would build into health reform legislation such a huge increase in ammunition taxes that the most destructive types of bullets would effectively be taxed “out of existence.”
The New York Democrat introduced a measure yesterday — which he would incorporate into a health care reform bill later on — that would impose a 100-fold increase in the tax on certain bullets and a 50 percent tax on all other handgun ammunition, with the exception of .22 caliber rimfire bullets used in target shooting. The current tax is 11 percent of the manufacturers’ ammunition price.
His legislation also would slap a $10,000 “occupational tax” on manufacturers and importers of handgun ammunition.
The proposal drew immediate fire from the National Rifle Association, and a tepid response from the Clinton administration.
Mr. Moynihan said he believed the new taxes could raise as much as $1 billion. The current federal tax on ammunition, combined with federal taxes on handguns, shotguns and rifles, generated $143 million in 1992, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
But the senator said his major goal was not to raise revenue but to tax “out of existence” ammunition “which has the sole purpose destroying bodies.”
Although several lawmakers have expressed interest in making gun or ammunition taxes part of a health reform bill, Mr. Moynihan is the first chairman to declare that his committee would do so.
Such a step would put into law the connection that President Clinton and many officials are making between health care and violence.
“The purpose of this legislation is to bring the cost of ammunition in line with the costs it imposes on our society,” said Mr. Moynihan, a long-time advocate of gun control. “Handgun ammunition is used to kill more than 24,000 Americans each year. . . . It seems to me we must view the public health impact of bullets — death and injury — much as we view an epidemic.”
Mr. Clinton strongly considered including an ammunition tax in his health care reform legislation, then backed away to avoid making the bill more controversial than it already is. But the administration has sent supportive signals to lawmakers who want such a tax. Last month, Hillary Rodham Clinton told lawmakers that she favored a tax on guns and ammunition.
Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen told Mr. Moynihan that “we’re willing to look” at increased taxes and fees but would not elaborate. A White House spokeswoman refused to comment further.
Mr. Moynihan faces a fight from the influential gun lobby. An NRA spokesman, Bill McIntyre, said Mr. Moynihan’s tax amounts to “inflating the cost of self-defense.”
“Law-abiding firearms owners are the most likely group who would be buying this ammunition and paying the taxes,” Mr. McIntyre said. “Criminals would not.”
Mr. Moynihan announced his plan during a committee hearing at which Mr. Bentsen testified on the costs of the president’s health care reform legislation. “I feel very strongly” about increasing the tax, Mr. Moynihan said, “and I cannot imagine” a reform bill “coming out of the committee without this.”
His panel has jurisdiction over tax issues and will have a major role in shaping health reform legislation.
The largest tax would fall on all .50-caliber bullets and the Winchester “Black Talon” 9mm bullet, whose power is such that some police officers in Maryland have called for a ban on its sale to the public. The Baltimore County police department uses Black Talon bullets.
But officials at Olin Corp.’s Winchester Division in Illinois took issue with Mr. Moynihan’s singling out of the Black Talon. “We feel like it’s just another bullet [among] high-performance . . . bullets,” said Mike Jordan, a company manager.
The bullet, one of the company’s best sellers, has greater stopping power than many other handgun bullets and is designed not to fragment when striking a target, he said. This is advantageous to police, who don’t want bullets they shoot to pass through a suspect and strike a bystander, he added.
But the bullet is extremely destructive to human tissue, a characteristic described in a gun magazine cited by Mr. Moynihan. “The Talon expands to expose razor-sharp reinforced jacket petals,” said Handguns for Sport & Defense Magazine, and “penetrates soft tissue like a throwing star,” a sharp-edged multi-pointed weapon. “Very nasty,” the magazine concluded. “A real improvement in handgun ammo.”
“If they can make the tax $100, they can make the tax $1,000 or 10,000.”
If they can make the tax $0.01, they can make it blood, but have ALREADY MADE IT BLOOD SWEAT AND TEARS. If you’ve made a firearms/ammo purchase you have already traded a part of your life for it. If you’ve paid a tax, someone has taken part of tour life from you. When the cost gets too high, you’ll want them to pay you back, but if you’ve surrendered the means to make them…
The power to tax is the power to destroy. Fortunately, Representative Dipstick does not have either power. But the Democrats are getting turgid (or damp) just thinking about it.
“The power to tax is the power to destroy.”
It’s a little more slimy than that.
Tax what you want less of while claiming you’re not banning it.
Legislation should be introduced mandating that all Democrats be forced to attend Constitutional Re-education Camp. Immediately and forcefully.
“Inside every Liberal is a Tyrant screaming to get out… Tyrants don’t have to justify anything. True Liberals shouldn’t have to justify anything either, so there…”
–Fractals ‘R Us, Mar 24, 2014
A trip to the Ministry of Love?
If you are a Left Wing Dem and a rabid anti-gun advocate I suppose it makes sense (to them) to tax the heck out of anything that you can’t stop. Works so great on cigarettes and alcohol. Nobody uses those anymore, do they? /sarc off The weird thing about sin taxes is that the government actually becomes an advocate, in an odd way, to keep the sins in place because they generate so much revenue. Same will happen with the Pot tax in WA State and elsewhere.
Gotta fund Planned Parenthood’s baby chop shop for lamborghinis somehow.
So, is it better to have more low-income population brought into the welfare system introduced to vote for her and her kind? That makes no sense.
yes, people are always more important than politics. Consider though, no one [woman] can claim that she gives a good goddamn about my life, when the life of an unborn child, created by her invitation, is worthless. We never live long enough in our pitched battle together to even open a conversation about guns if that is ever the case.
But it should make you more apprehensive about the masses coming into our (if it’s “our” or your country if you are not from the US) country. If your neighbors are dictating to you (tyranny), you cannot allow your neighbors to build a further coalition of likeminded oppressors (oppression).
So this congresswomen want’s to keep guns out of the poor people’s hands. That also means minority communities as well. Must be a raciest.
As in racy, racier, raciest?
More Raciery than NASCAR.
The tax isn’t the problem so much as the idea that gun owners are responsible for the damages caused by misguided social policies. The move is Seemingly noble but ineffective against the problem and filled with anti-gun subtext.
It would certainly be a propaganda win for the Brady bunch, if not a cash payout as well.
It’s to fund their Chi-com-cago precinct walk around $ in case of lean times before the next election.
Ok, let’s tax each word that she speaks or writes at $1.00. Oops, want to worship, that is a tax of $20.00. How about a vote on it, darn taxes, that is another $50.00.
“Ok, let’s tax each word that she speaks or writes at $1.00.”
After all, freedom of the press only meant the technology of the press in the late 1700’s.
Those ‘safe’ presses back then could only print as fast as the man running it could pull the levers.
Today’s lethal assault presses run on electricity at stupid fast speeds. No one needs an automatic press spitting out the printed word at speeds unimaginable back then in late 1700’s.
Why, the injuries from that quantity of paper cuts will make the streets turn into rivers of blood…
Certainly the vast quantity of stupidity spewed out over the TV is overfilling Amerika’s streets with moronity.
I have an idea…how about Congress fund mental health and violence reduction programs out of all the bloat and redundant programs at the federal level? Cut those and use the freed up funding for your new little pet projects. Before levying new taxes, how about you recognize that most programs at the federal level are just a jobs program and really are unnecessary.
In short…how about…no. Let’s not place an arbitrary $100 federal tax on firearms purchases.
“Shall not be infringed” — What part of that do you not understand?
“Smart gun laws work”?? Does that mean laws about smart guns or smart laws about guns?
Either way, I don’t believe that I have seen or heard of such a law.
What a maroon!
It will be argued by them that a $200 tax already exists and has for over 80years for NFA34 regulated guns so why not $100 for other guns.
Every time there is a mass shooting, it is always the availability of guns that they claim is the problem, and they never want to talk about or fix the mental health issues. All of the sudden, mental health becomes a priority. Why aren’t they advocating for fixes to the mental health system as much as gun control? Oh, yes, because they are only interested in disarming people, not actually fixing the problem.
Which raises another question, why aren’t we screaming loud and clear that the antis are almost criminally standing in the way of actual progress in the efforts to reduce mass shootings?
Every time there is a mass shooting, they want to take guns away from everyone who didn’t do it.
This will do nothing to stop people from getting a gun to break the law. It only affects the law-abiding (the vast majority of gun owners), and this is totally by design. They aren’t after actual criminals, after all: they hope to use the “gun violence epidemic” canard to create a new criminal class out of those who oppose them. Pay the tax, obey the restrictions, or they’re coming to take me away, ha ha.
Is everyone here already aware of the existing 11% federal tax on all firearms, bows, ammo and arrows?
Note the sign held by window dressing in upper right corner of picture.
I have a better idea. Every gun purchased gets a $100 rebate from the state of your residence, up to a limit of say $500. Since it is proven that more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens decreases crime, that can translate to a decrease in the number of law enforcement officers required. In effect, a smart state that has a high percentage of gun owners, and a low number of LEOs, would actually be saving money. Nah! makes too much sense.
Can we have a $100 poll tax too, so those filthy welfare leeches who don’t want to work like the rest of us can’t vote in their favorite gravy trains?
The less around that refuse pay for themselves and their spawn the better…funding abortions is money well spent in my book.
That sounds like a good idea, if you’re starting from the premise that there is a pregnant welfare leech at hand who, but for money to pay for an abortion, will have that child and add to the welfare roles today and prison rolls tomorrow.
The problem is, that’s not necessarily how life and decisions unfold. If you’re offering free abortions, then what you’re really giving incentive to isn’t so much abortions, but rather promiscuity. You’re creating a moral hazard (in the economic sense) by insulating people from the consequences of their actions.
Have reckless, unprotected sex all you want! We’ll cover you if you get pregnant. It’s the same dynamic of sex and welfare itself. Have all the sex you want, and someonebelse will pay for your kid’s upbringing. Well, expanding the population of promiscuous women by promising free abortions could backfire if substantial numbers of such women becom pregnant, but decide later on nit to terminate. Now you have even more welfare babies than before.
Ultimately, you aren’t going the remedy the problem of government welfare merely by creating yet another entitlement. You have to end welfare not just revise and extend it.
If the act of killing an unborn human as a matter of convenience doesn’t make that person a monster, then we gotta worry more about you and your motivations. You may have too low a standard to include in society. People worry about mass murderers, but there’s been a few kids thrown in a bucket just while I’ve typed this. You can say they’re not “people” but then I can say that you’re not.
She’s my Congressional Representative. The other day I sent her a letter for the first time, asking her to support the Hearing Protection Act. I’m not expecting a satisfying response.
I don’t regret putting a modicum of pressure against her anti-gun stance. But I took an NRA class the other day to get an out-of-state CCW permit, and I’m fleeing these tyrants. I’m just like the other refugees from communist and socialist countries, passionate about defending Free America because we’ve seen what these
domestic enemiespeople with political differences would turn it into.
This is just another classist bill to keep guns out of the hands of poor folks by making them more expensive. On top of already existing “Saturday night special” legislation banning inexpensive firearms. I guess this is even better for the statists, since the extra hundred dollars doesn’t go toward buying a better-made gun, but straight into the coffers of the federal government to be wasted on useless bullshit.
How about we follow the Supreme Courts Ruling that says that you can not tax a Right… and ban the collection of Sales Tax on Gun and Ammo purchases.
There is a reason that the Supreme Court says you can not tax a Right. The Govt could tax any one of our Rights to the point that they would be practical meaningless.
“The Power to Tax… is the power to destroy” -Justice John Jay
Why so little “diversity” in that crowd? Looks like the Drive by Shooting Club.
WE have a “violence tax” of $25 in Cook County,Illinois.(on all new guns). I get around it by buying NOTHING in Cook County. I bought a handgun(for a good deal) in Indiana and sent it to an FFL right across the border from Cook-they get LOTS of business by not playing ball. Good luck collecting your tax…and this goofy gal knows she has no chance.
Sucks for small local businesses that have been there awhile, though…
Well that’s one way to make sure gun purchases stay far off the radar…
Not a fan of my local gun shop-everything is priced sky-high and they have no layaway. And they have annoying ex-leo counter jerks. And their gun range is nearly 2X everyone else. AND they priced -gouged during the ammo famine. Cabelas/Hammond,In and Blythes in Griffith,Indiana did NOT…soooo-quid pro quo for me.
I’ve noticed that the ex & off-duty leo’s that we have at the few local gun shops/ranges have that similar bend, like they are the keepers of the keys and get to dole out the guns. Trouble is, they’re only used to dealing with “bad” guys and they can get jaded after awhile so that everyone looks like one eventually. So, they start looking like that to us.
I fear this bill has a backdoor that can be abused even further.
The 1986 Firearm Owner’s Protection Act’s Registry Prohibition banned any federal entity of keeping a running list of non-NFA firearms owned/purchased. However, should a group like the IRS wish to keep a list of who has payed this $100, that’s a work-around that could effectively be abused to undermine FOPA.They’d have a list. They damn well want a list. And by making excuses that sound reasonable to the uneducated, they could get away with it.
Just like how the Obamacare “shared responsibility tax” was labeled a “tax” and not a “fine” by the Supreme Court, it could also be found that the IRS should be able to keep books on “All tax information”.
I’m sure a Proggie has thought of this first.
All FFLs keep a ledger that can be tied directly back to a phone log on NICS checks. The ATF demands that 20+ year old ledgers, and ledgers of FFLs that have closed their businesses (hey suckcess S.F.) be surrendered to the ATF. There is a de facto gun registration now.
I’m of the understand that it isn’t that 4473s are required to be submitted after 20 years of age, but that they are required to be held for 20 years. After 20 years they can be legally destroyed (and should be), and if no one ever requested the forms they may never have been seen again after the purchase. However, the last 20 years of business are required to be submitted after the FFL closes down. So the responsible FFL’s option is to continue running a skeleton operation for 20 years so that the bulk of records can be destroyed, or to devise some sort of convenient records-destroying accident and obtain the help of a good lawyer.
I buy the 4473 thing, but the FFLs inventory transfer log is producable upon demand during normal business hours, and forever. A 12 yr old could run a quick comparison of even the biggest box store’s black friday sale ledger to NICS calls and place serial #’s with purchasers nearly to the nut without using scrap paper. You wouldn’t need POS receipt totals to determine if you bought ammo or extra mags with your purchase.
Interesting how it all comes down to money, isn’t it. I suspect pot will become legal in almost every state when the politicians realize how much $$$ they can make from it.
“Interesting how it all comes down to moneY”
Ya, but even if you won/win $100’s of millions playing lotto, would gun-grabbing ever safely be too small a problem for you and your family?
And the pot thing…no. Marx said religion is the opium of the masses. He meant that in a bad way, like don’t get gaught up in it, but he was a POS, and he also meant it was a useful tool, a ring in your nose to lead you around by. Don’t let your pot be your opium.
While she’s at it, why not also propose a $10 tax on every newspaper sale? If you’re reading articles a la carte on the internet, that’ll be $1 per article with a cap of 25 per week. And the proceeds can go to support…let’s say…anti-pornography initiatives. That would make just as much sense.
How about a $100 tax every time a politician opens their mouth!
Scary to know these people are in the House.
Someone needs to report her to the local mental hospital. She is clearly deranged.
If this bothers you, why aren’t you annoyed by the NFA taxes?
What about the “excise” tax already charged on every gun made and/or imported? Why doesn’t tat make you mad?
What about the multiple taxes charged on every round of ammo manufactured?
They add up to a lot more than the $100 this crazy b!tch is proposing… Why aren’t you mad already? Why aren’t you doing anything about the more-than-100-dollars taxes that already exist?
Gee, and I already felt so much safer when I had to cough up $200 for each one of my cans!
So they want law-abiding gun owners to pay for mental health?
Do the police pay a tax for criminals? Does the military pay a tax for terrorists or other armies?
How about you pay me $100 for every dumb anti-constitutional / anti-2A idea I have to listen to that politicians try to pass that are inept and won’t do anything to prevent violence?
Or how about this. Let the criminals and mentally ill pay for their own mental health reform. Why would you charge a law abiding citizen for a tax that isn’t their responsibility?
You guys don’t really take these anti-gun people seriously anymore do you? This individual is a one term politician of the House, she has nothing to lose. Not surprising the anti-gun groups found a Congressional sucker(from Puerto Rico) to do their bidding since the whole world knows they can’t deliver elections, never have been. They can deliver a recall for the ignoramus who actually acts and votes against guns.
When the politicians give up their armed body guards then they have some SMALL ground to stand on.
No double standards DC politicians on Obamacare and SS.Thanks for your support and vote.Pass the word. mrpresident2016.com
Last time we tossed the tea into the harbor, this time we should toss in the politicians.
Only the rich should have guns.
only good people have guns
GREAT people use guns to make bad people fear them and stop doing evil.
So Treemane heads out of his crib in the hood and down the block where Doowayne is chillin and Treemane tells Doowayne he needs a gun and Doowayne tells him it will be 250 plus 100 tax and Treemane is sad cause he don’t gots 100 for the tax so he heads back to his crib and builds a zipgun out of spare parts and heads on down the block and shoots Doowayne between the eyes and takes the gun and now Treemane is happy cause he now has a high capacity gun with the thing that goes up and Treemane heads on down the block to the birthday party and shoots five six year old children because their baby daddy is a member of a rival gang and now Treemane is really happy and so he heads on back to his crib stepping over Doowayne on the way to chill and drink some Mogan David and smoke some bud and the next day neighborhood folk burn down half the city and loot the other half and build a monument to Doowayne because he was a good boy who was turning his life around and heading off to medical school because guns. Look at this baby.
…proving once again that Democrats hate poor people.
Though, I’m eagerly awaiting her explanation for how she proposes to levy this sales tax on the 85-90% of firearms transactions by criminals conducted outside of commercial FFLs. I’m sure the gangbanger selling out of his trunk is going to keep stacks of sales tax forms, right next to his stacks of Form 4473s?
Have at it.
“Have at it.”
Buy unpapered, and learn to reload. …
Who is looking out for the mentally ill? Once this tax drives down gun purchases, funding for treatment for the mentally ill will dry up – we can be sure that current stable funding will be reallocated. That means we will have thousands of the I’ll going untreated. Why does she hate our most vulnerable Americans?
Great idea, Madame Representative. Can we do the same for voting rights…please…?
Nevermind. Wouldn’t work. The democrats would just stand outside the polls with stacks of Soros-provided Franklins…
Is that not basically what they do now? They give you a check at minimum once a month. You in turn are encouraged to vote for them. Didn’t Johnson get in trouble for this in Texas? Someone receiving a payment to vote a certain way is illegal( I’m pretty sure about this: Council you may interlude here).
So should we not remove the right to vote from those on the payroll?
A felon looses his right to vote due to being a detriment to society. Is a person who refuses to work and be an active productive member of society also a detriment to society?
Its a good thing that none of these Libtards Bills never see the light of day. There idea is racist, the poorest people in there district are a lot of minorities and she wants to make it really harder for them to arm themselves against the criminals. Go figure.
$100 tax on voting! Use the funds to combat voter fraud.
Man, what a great idea. Glad I thought of it.
Ha! $100 tax on voting would be the end of the Democratic Party!
Taxes on guns. Taxes on ammo.
So add to the bill a $100 tax to enter the polling place and $1 per each vote (each candidate, each office, each referendum, etc.)
It will be ruled unconstitutional in 20 seconds…. oh wait, this is our government in action. It will be ruled unconstitutional in 20 years.
Not if a EBT card can be used to pay the tax.
While it’s her constituents who are doing much of the murdering.
“if i can’t trust my people with guns, nobody can have ’em” – black liberals
I guess I’m failing to see how my local trunk-based gun dealership is going to be forced to collect this tax…he doesn’t even charge sales tax!
Criminals and governments(but I repeat myself) always go where the money is.
So Tyrone will get charged with illegal possesion of a gun by a convicted felon and tax evasion?
If they passed a law that required a $100 tax per firearm – I still wouldn’t pay it. Sorry.
I said it before. Gun control can easily be achieved by taxing ammo and the guns themselves to the point were very few can afford them. This can be accomplished over time. Be very careful here, this is only the beginning. They figured out a way around 2A.
Actually this bill has nothing to do with gun control and she knows it’s DOA from the outset. This bill is all about her being able to write a campaign letter to her constituents for the 2016 fundraising and election.
I’ll introduce a bill that does the same thing, except against non-gun owners. Because… there’s so many more of them than us, right?
—how about a hundred dollar pay cut per week for these a-holes
Making guns more costly by using tax law is historically how newly freed slaves were prevented from buying guns. These laws were never intended to apply to white people. It seems racist politicians of color want to keep poor law abiding blacks disarmed and the white police they hate do much armed.
The taxation without representation..
Why $100? Why not $100,000? Or $1 Billion? Heck, why not $100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000?
I mean, since stupid liberals are just are just making sh1t up out of thin air, why not play along?
This is not 100$ per murder like somebody stated, it doesnt matter what laws you impose only law abiding citizens will follow the law!! MURDER is already illegal and…. WA-WA-WAAAAAAAA people still do it. These criminals will pay 0$ per gun because they steal them, buy them from someone they cant “trust” AKA another criminal. Ridiculous these people think any of this will work. Heck, take away all the guns in America!! Wait, nope only the people who follow the law would hand them over (in a perfect world that is, but i wouldnt) and then again criminals will have them. Literally cops and criminals will be the only ones armed with firearms.
We already pay a gun tax on every firearm sold commercially in the US – 11% FET is charged under the Pittman Robertson Act on all ammunition, firearms and archery equipment sales.