$1,000 tax on handguns

Status
Not open for further replies.
The 'fishing' parallel of Pittman-Robertson was enacted in 1950 as the Dingell-Johnson Act.

Both of these have done more for wildlife conservation than all the anti's-hunting / fishing efforts combined.
 
It amazes me how few know (and of those who know, how few care) that there is already a 10% federal tax on all handguns and 11% on all long guns and ammunition.
Click to expand...

Nope. I did NOT know that. Thank you for posting.
 
The original National Firearms Act, drawn up by FDR's humorless, nut-case Attorney General, Homer Cummings, imposed taxes and registration on all guns and ammunition. I don't recall the exact numbers, but it was something like $50 for a shotgun, $200 for a rifle, $500 for a handgun and $1000 for a machine gun. In addition, each shotgun shell was taxed at $1, .22 at $50, rifle ammo at $2 a round, and handgun ammo at $5. Silencers and other stuff was taxed like machine guns.

It is often forgotten today, but FDR was very anti-gun. Some say that he planned to order the army to disperse Congress and take over as dictator - a common idea in the world at the time (1934), remember - and there is evidence to support that view. He never went the whole way, though he became president for life, but we got the NFA, the first FEDERAL gun "control" law.

I think the inflation calculator used above is off a bit, and the real rate in purchasing power would be closer to 30:1 2016 dollars vs 1934 dollars, making $200 equal to $6000. The tax was, and was intended to be, prohibitory.

Jim
 
Over the years, sportsmen, through the excise taxes and license fees have contributed millions, if not billions of dollars to conservation works.

All the moneys contributed by animal rights groups "for the animals" go where? What percentage actually gets to benefit animals? I don't know, but I expect somewhat less than 100%.

Excise tax money and license fees, (from the many states where the fees do NOT go into the general fund) go to conservation work.

I have not found any reference to any opposition to the taxes. Both sportsmen groups and the industry supported them. We pay our share, and then some.
 
You could take care of yourself and family at better than a subsistence level on $1000 a year in 1934. That $200 was ten per cent of the price of a new house on a town lot. Big bucks in those days. This is why the Bonus Army, veterans who were promised $20 a year upon application in 1945, formed together and marched on Washington DC in the hope of receiving a sum about equal to the NFA tax, although they certainly did not want the money to register war trophies.
 
Ah, who could forget the Bonus Army marchers? With their ragged clothes, camped out in a shanty town, veterans all, a few with family members, PEACEFULLY BEGGING the government for help, in the form of an early payment for what had been promised??

Apparently nearly everyone has. And what happened. Army troops under Gen MacArther, Major Eisenhower, and Major Patton, using gas, fixed bayonets, cavalry with drawn sabers, and even TANKS, were sent in, and the 20,000 peaceful protesters were ...dispersed. Officially, no one was killed. Officially.

Kind of our own version of Tiananamin Square.

A shameful chapter in our history, but one that should be remembered, and pointed out to all those who think "it can't happen here".

It already has.
 
An interesting thought: If the Marianas' tax is declared an Unconstitutional infringement of 2nd Amendment rights, what implications might that have for the $200 registration/transfer tax on machine guns, etc? :confused::eek::rolleyes:
 
If the Marianas' tax is declared an Unconstitutional infringement of 2nd Amendment rights, what implications might that have for the $200 registration/transfer tax on machine guns, etc?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't get my hopes up too much, for a couple of reasons. First off, the Marianas is a US territory. While I don't know if it matters in this case or not, but I do know that there are some legal differences between territories and states. This may have a bearing on whether or not what happens there translates to what happens here.

Second, and most likely, is that even if the argument is brought in court, and we "win", it might not result in repeal of the tax, without further court fights.

There are so many "dodges" and "loopholes" possible it looks to be a very daunting task.

Whether urban legend or actual fact, I cannot say, but there is a story about income tax protestors, who seemed to be fairly common some time ago, and then we never heard about them again. Supposedly their claim was the tax was unconstitutional because it was never properly ratified. The outcome of the story goes that they finally got their day in court, and the court agreed, the tax was never properly ratified, HOWEVER, since we have been paying it for 80+ years (at the time) the court ruled it was a valid tax, and we would continue paying it.

Something like this MIGHT be a possible outcome of any challenge to the NFA tax as we have been paying them since 1934. The outlook for success is not totally black, but it is bleak.

There are two main sentiments about the NFA, on our side, those who feel it should be fought, with the ideal of repeal, and those who while they don't like it, believe we are better off "not poking the bear".

In other words, if we bring the issue into the public eye, bring the horribly mis and under-informed public into the issue, the anti's will have a field day, shift public opinion even further off base, and we will lose more than we gain. They feel that the best we could get (and it is unlikely) is the status quo with the tax "adjusted" to today's money levels. What is felt to be more likely is not just the tax being increased but even further restrictions.

Logic, reason, and our rights, will not matter. We cannot even count on support from the usual sources. I know several otherwise fine folks, and staunch 2nd Amendment supporters in general, that draw their personal line at machineguns. One friend once told me that she would trust ME with a machinegun, they were NOT something for the general public.

We have over 80 years of both law and propaganda demonizing machineguns in private hands. The entertainment industry has been showing the public only bad guys with full auto (other than war movies) for such a long time, its not something you can change in one fell swoop.

Even if by some miracle, we did manage to repeal the NFA, I expect some concerned legislators would instantly produce new and likely even further reaching legislation to restrict or even completely ban such arms, the Heller decision not withstanding. There is the remote possibility that such a law when it gets to the High Court could not only be upheld, but Heller might even be overturned. The people sitting on the court at the time will decide, and right now, it looks like our "friends" on the court are fewer than they were, and not likely to increase their numbers. I remind you that the US SUPREME COURT only upheld our legal individual right to arms by ONE VOTE.

ONE VOTE.

think on that...
 
If people knew what they are missing, then we will have a chance to repeal 922(o). Machine guns are so rare, that people don't know what they're missing; so it's a self perpetuating cycle of deprivation.

That's why gun owners have to stop disparaging F/A simulators like the slide fire type devices or the binary triggers. People need to get a taste of what's been taken from them. When all this stuff is common, then there will be a chance to repeal 922(0).
 
44 AMP said:
Are you also aware that the Pittman-Robertson tax is applied to bows, arrows, and fishing poles as well? Probably some other "sporting" equipment, too.
Click to expand...
Yes.

44 AMP said:
There is a significant difference between something like a $1,000 tax, imposed as a punitive measure, an attempt to "price pistols out of the market" and a (reasonable) tax imposed at the wholesale level, used to support conservation work for fish & game, and supported by the industry at the time of, and ever since its passage.
Click to expand...
I agree! This is a tax that is put to a good purpose. But, when folks argue that any tax on a basic right is unconstitutional and bad, often they don't even know our right to keep and bear arms is already significantly taxed.
 
often they don't even know our right to keep and bear arms is already significantly taxed.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I would consider the Pittman-Robertson tax "significant" or a direct tax on our right to keep and bear arms. #1, it is not levied on the consumer, but on manufacturers, and #2, is not just a tax on firearms.

Also, it only applies once, when the item is manufactured. Before it is sold to the public (or distributors / dealers).

Yes, it is a tax, and it is on guns, etc., but it is not significant in the sense that it changes they way people buy, own, or use the product.

Most folks don't know about it, because they never SEE it. WE don't "pay" it, it is a "cost of doing business" for manufacturers, like many other taxes, fees, and permit costs. Yes, makers pass this cost on to us in the form of the retail price, but they do that with ALL their costs.

There is a world of difference to the consumer between a tax the maker includes in the price, and buying an item at retail, and THEN getting hit with ANOTHER (special and specific) tax.

Personally, the firearm "tax" that bugs me most, currently is the "tax" we have to pay for FFL dealers to run background checks. I don't care what they call it, to me, when the LAW spells out a cost you must pay, it is a tax.

Taxes can be in the "open" and still be sneaky and not thought about most of the time. The gasoline taxes are like that. About the only time people ever think of them is when the state wants to raise them, again.

Folks may know, but most are not really aware that the cost of a gallon of gasoline is pretty low but the price of that gallon is not, due to Federal and State taxes. Depending on where you live, somewhere between 2/3 and 3/4 of the price of that gas is taxes.

The main reason people don't usually think about those high taxes is that they are built into the price charged at the pump.

If the pump price to fill your tank was $5, and then when you paid the cashier, you got charged an additional $30 in taxes, people would scream, loudly, EVERY DAY! It isn't, we don't, and so, we pay, and pay, and pay...
AND, we BLAME the oil companies!!!
 
Federal Aid Division -- The Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act


Bringing Wildlife Back -- Then and Now

America the Beautiful is still the home of wondrous numbers and varieties of wild creatures. Yet, only a few decades ago, wildlife's survival was very much in doubt. The early settlers had encountered a spectacular abundance of wildlife. But, in their zeal to conquer an untamed continent, they squandered that legacy for centuries, wiping out some species and reducing others to a pitiful remnant of their original numbers.
Breakthrough: Pittman-Robertson Act

Then a remarkable thing happened. At the urging of organized sportsmen, State wildlife agencies, and the firearms and ammunition industries, Congress extended the life of an existing 10 percent tax on ammunition and firearms used for sport hunting, and earmarked the proceeds to be distributed to the States for wildlife restoration. The result was called the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration act, better known as the Pittman-Robertson (or "P-R") Act after its principal sponsors, Senator Key Pittman of Nevada, and Representative A. Willis Robertson of Virginia. The measure was signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on September 2, 1937.

Since then, numerous species have rebuilt their populations and extended their ranges far beyond what they were in the 1930's. Among them are the wild turkey, white-tailed deer, pronghorn antelope, wood duck, beaver, black bear, giant Canada goose, American elk, desert bighorn sheep, bobcat, mountain lion, and several species of predatory birds.
Shared Costs, Shared Benefits

Federal Funding from P-R pays for up to 75 percent of project costs, with the States putting up at least 25 percent. The assurance of a steady source of earmarked funds has enabled the program's administrators, both State and Federal, to plan projects that take years to complete, as short-term strategies seldom come up with lasting solutions where living creatures are involved.

In the more than 50 years since P-R began, over $2 billion in Federal excise taxes has been matched by more than $500 million in State funds (chiefly from hunting license fees) for wildlife restoration. Benefits to the economy have been equally impressive. National surveys show that hunters now spend some $10 billion every year on equipment and trips. Non-hunting nature lovers spend even larger sums to enjoy wildlife, on travel and on items that range from bird food to binoculars, from special footwear to camera equipment. Areas famous for their wildlife have directly benefited from this spending, but so have sporting goods and outdoor equipment manufacturers, distributors and dealers. Thousands of jobs have been created.

Emphasis added.

In case anyone's interested, the rest of this is here.

http://www.fws.gov/southeast/federalaid/pittmanrobertson.html
 
44 AMP said:
I remind you that the US SUPREME COURT only upheld our legal individual right to arms by ONE VOTE.

ONE VOTE.

think on that...
Click to expand...


I have thought about that and it is depressing. It is astounding that the U.S. Supreme Court almost declared a right, in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, not a right at all. An alarming number of U.S. Supreme Court justices seem to explain away an individual right by saying it is a collective right or basically no right at all. Can you imagine an argument, for example, that the 1st and 5th Amendments were a collective right?
 
The Citizens United case is debatable. It confirmed first amendment protections for corporations and other organizations, it wasn't an issue of individual rights, which is exactly what we argue the second amendment protects.

I personally don't have a problem with corporations saying whatever they want, but I have a big problem with them buying politicians, and this case confirmed that it's legal for them to do so. Our government is supposed to be for the PEOPLE, and right now it's for the CORPORATIONS.
 
but I have a big problem with them buying politicians, and this case confirmed that it's legal for them to do so.
Click to expand...

I think you are misinterpreting both the law, and the court's decision a bit.

While I admit it goes on in the real world, no one, corporation, special interest group or individual can legally "buy" a politician. They call that bribery, and its against the law. The trick is, of course, to be able to prove it in court.

The law was, and should have been struck down, not because of its intent (which was good) but because of the specific wording, and the consequences of that wording. It didn't JUST prohibit "corporations" from spending money on political causes. Despite that fact that corporations spending was all the press talked about, the law, and the case was more than that.

If you want politicians who cannot be bought, the only way is to elect politicians who will not be bought. And those people are rather thin on the ground in politics, these days. History shows that they always have been.
:(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top