Realistic opinions on O's tax on weapons and ammo.

[GWRedDragon]

Additionally, I don't believe a punitive tax like this would pass legal scrutiny in the courts.

Courts have repeatedly ruled that taxes are valid even when they don't seem to be for the purpose of raising revenue. As long as the legislative authority does not say it is a tax for another purpose, all taxes are assumed to be for the purpose of raising revenue.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[jfl]

I think the "new" government will have to do many unpopular things to try to control the economy and have no reason to get involved in a secondary (for them) conflict with the 2A supporters ... at least for a year or 2.
O strikes me more as opportunistic than idealist and there is no opportunity (for now) in creating problems and lay-offs in the firearm industry.
My $.04 (inflation ???)

[automatic slim]

The bottom line is that Osama has the votes to get anything he wants passed and newly elected democrats are going to be anxious to show their loyalty. A 500% tax on guns and ammo can be spun as a necessary measure to raise bail out money for the banks. Firearms factories going belly up is no problem, there are many overseas that can supply both guns and ammo to the military. A little known fact is that WWII would have ended about 9 months sooner, except Swiss arms factories kept the German army supplied. Consider Sig, FN, Llama, PMC, H&K, Sellier & Bellot, etc. Keeping the military supplied will be no problem and if it is, the government can always nationalize domestic arms factories.
As for a tax increase not standing up in court, I'm sure Osama will appoint judges that will rubber stamp anything he wants.

[BAC]

The bottom line is that Osama has the votes to get anything he wants passed and newly elected democrats are going to be anxious to show their loyalty.

This shows an extremely poor understanding of the current congressional makeup. Neither part of Congress is filibuster proof. Many of those newly-elected Democrats are also pro-gun and less party-line than sitting Democrats. Do you have historical evidence to suggest that newly-elected congressmen are anxious to show their loyalty to a new president?

Obama has no ability to tax. He did not run for a legislative position.


-B

[Sarge45]

Executive Order.

[Thanis]

...Neither part of Congress is filibuster proof. Many of those newly-elected Democrats are also pro-gun...Obama has no ability to tax. He did not run for a legislative position....

+1

The odds of a 500% tax on common firearms and ammo is very difficult to imagine. Sounds like hysteria (I'm starting to think firearms groups have found a great way to stir the pot and increase sales).

While 500% taxes are beyond my imagination, maybe I can imagine somes bans. Very stupid bans on "dangerous ammo" (think talons and rangers). So FMJ that penetrate will be considered safer. Or scarry sniper rifles. The Remington 700 will be safe, but if you want a Barrett M107 (or some other .50 sniper rifle), now might be the time to pull the trigger on that sale.

I've bought into the hysteria a little. We are loading up on reload supplies for .38, .44, and 30.06. Sometimes reloading is less a chore and feels more like a fun part of the hobby (however, I'm new to true reloading). I've been buying manufactured .38 just to load up on the brass.

As far as semi-auto handguns, I have often considered 9mm, but I don't like using reloads for semi-auto handguns (like Glocks, and esp my favorite round .357 Sig).

So, I very much doubt the next 4 years will include a ban or 500% tax on the firearms I use. I do feel bad for those who have a collection / hobby that will be (possibility) effected. I must also admit I can't help but "buy" into the hysteria. I've stored up on some handgun ammo. But I don't think it is the hysteria tax hype, but concerns with the econ. I'm uncertain of the cost increase on the supply demand curve for ammo.

[BAC]

Executive Order.

Prove it.


-B

[pogo2]

Courts have repeatedly ruled that taxes are valid even when they don't seem to be for the purpose of raising revenue. As long as the legislative authority does not say it is a tax for another purpose, all taxes are assumed to be for the purpose of raising revenue.

It is quite possible to raise tax rates and reduce the tax revenue of the government. Economist Arthur Laffer demonstrated this years ago with his "Laffer Curve".

In California several years ago the cigarette tax was increased sharply and government revenues from that tax declined. The reason was that many consumers found lower tax ways to buy their cigarettes, such as out of state or Indian reservation retailers.

So I believe that the numbers would indicate to any court examining the facts that the purpose of the ammo and firearm tax was not to increase government tax revenue but to kill an industry and deprive citizens of a Constitutional right.

[MitchellCT]

Article I, Section 8. Taxation and revenue is an express power of the legislature, not the executive.

Taxes cannot be imposed by the President.

Try again.

[Tangle]

I have my doubts that Obama or the Senate/Congress will do much in the way of gun control. If they do, the hunters and other gun owners that voted for Obama would realize his true position on the 2A issue and that would jepardize his second term potential because people would realize where he really stands on gun control.

Also, won't a number of the Senators and Congressmen be up for re-election again in two years? That would make them reluctant to pass anti-gun bills.

It seems the real danger would be if Obama gets re-elected for a second term, which I doubt will happen BTW. The reason I think it unlikely, is that people will see the 'change' wasn't the change they expected in anyway.

[Gun Loving Liveral]

From my forum name you may assume correctly that I voted for the president elect and I am not worried about the 500% rumors. As several posters have pointed out any such tax WOULD require passage by congress. Also mentioned, the Democratic party is actually a bit less liberal than it was a few years ago (though I admit still overall liberal). Many of the new Democrats elected last week and in '06 are more moderate and some of them even ran as Pro 2nd Amendment, with a congressman from New Mexico coming to mind. While some in congress would doubtless love to introduce gun control legislation for most of them, and the prez, it would be WAY DOWN on the agenda. Neither pro nor anti gun citizens would support any such efforts until the economy becomes more stable. Of course, I am fairly well stocked on everything but .308 and that is because I inherited my only .308 (a CETME, yes this liberal owns an AW)a few months ago. I buy in bulk because it is cheaper, regardless of which party is in office!

[GWRedDragon]

From my forum name you may assume correctly that I voted for the president elect and I am not worried about the 500% rumors.

Me, I'm happy with support from wherever it comes, as long as it is genuine. Note that it is people like you who must be relied upon to keep the Dems in check when it comes to guns...they know they aren't going to get the conservative vote anyway, but if gun legislation would lose them liberal support then it would not be worth it to them.

Just be willing to switch sides if suddenly you find out you have been sold out.

[PaulJ]

Can he do it with a signing statement? Little Bush did amazing things with it. He essentially signs a law, and adds a clause like ... "oh... btw... I think to fund this healthcare bill we will levy a gun tax" ;-) Not that I think he will do it. But this would be a way I think.

[GWRedDragon]

Can he do it with a signing statement? Little Bush did amazing things with it. He essentially signs a law, and adds a clause like ... "oh... btw... I think to fund this healthcare bill we will levy a gun tax" ;-) Not that I think he will do it. But this would be a way I think.

http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...ive-order.html

[Gun Loving Liveral]

I am pretty sure any taxes imposed must have congressional approval. I do not think any executive order can do it. Any large increase in taxes on guns and ammunition might possibly be challenged constitutionally as restraint of trade or infringement on interstate commerce. Never sure how a supreme court will rule, but I bet it could be challenged. I need to get out my copy of the Constitution this weekend and see if I can find it.