Firearms Excise Tax Improvement Act

P

publius42

New member
This is interesting to me only because of who voted against it:

H.R. 5552, the House companion of S. 632, passed in the U.S. House of Representatives on June 29 by 412-6 margin with only a handful of congressmen -- John Conyers (D-MI), Sam Farr (D-CA), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Ron Paul (R-TX) and Maxine Waters (D-CA) -- voting against this common-sense measure.
Click to expand...

Anyone know what Ron Paul's problem with this bill is?
 
I'm local to Ron Paul and will ask his office what the deal is. If I had to guess, Ron probably voted against it as a tax that we don't need.

Back later.
 
Here's the problem I have against those who voted "NO" on this measure:

The tax in question was mandated to be submitted every other week. All other excise taxes were submitted once each quarter. This bill brought the Pittman-Robertson tax in line with all other excise taxes. The bill was never about increasing or decreasing the tax. Merely conform the payment schedule to that of the other taxes.

Ron Paul may be adverse to taxation, but this bill wasn't about anything more than conforming this one tax with the rest of the excise taxes, by how the taxes were paid to the government.

The only reason to vote against this bill, would be to keep the firearms industry saddled with a more expensive method of payment than other industries.
 
Maybe because the very essence of this “Excise Tax” on a Fundamental Right is unconstitutional?

The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that this legislation will create a net revenue increase of $4 million over ten years. Accordingly, S. 632 will increase funding for wildlife conservation through the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund. The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund, established by enactment of federal legislation in 1937, authorizes the development of wildlife restoration projects across the country.
Click to expand...

How about an Excise Tax on every visit to your place of worship? The money, once laundered through a Government Bureaucracy, will be used for religious conservation.

While I am not a big fan of Mr. Paul, I do see why he would not support this law.

-Boxcab
 
Perhaps, boxcab. But by voting "No" to this bill, he is not voting against a tax, he is voting to keep excessive costs on the very industry that supplies the implements for the right in question.
 
I agree with you, but by voting "Yea" for the bill it can easily be used against him as saying he is for the tax. Any endorsement for a bad law is endorsement of a bad law.

It would be interesting to hear what Mr. Paul had to say concerning this bill.

-Boxcab
 
Maybe because the very essence of this “Excise Tax” on a Fundamental Right is unconstitutional?
Click to expand...
It's a tax on certain commercial channels loosely involving the right, not a tax on the right itself.

More to the point, the gun culture supported the Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act. It stabilized the dwindling populations of many game animals we take for granted today. It provides funds to research and preserve land for hunting, and some of it goes to hunter-safety programs.

The nice thing about the Act is that it mandates that all monies collected go back to specific initiatives that help the shooting sports. Politicians don't get to plunder it for other things.

While I wouldn't mind seeing a little less than 11% being levied, the tax does good for our culture. The measure at hand simply makes the means of collection more manageable.

Why is Ron Paul against it? It's got the word tax in it, and if he doesn't jump up and down opposing it, he'll lose his True Believer credentials. His office has never responded to my letters or email, presumably because I'm not a direct constituent. Has anyone in his area been able to get an answer on this?
 
orionengnr said:
Any time I hear the term
common-sense measure
Click to expand...
especially as it relates to firearms...my antennae start to twitch.
Click to expand...

Even if it truly is?

Consider the paperwork expense and headache the manufacturers have, when they have to file the taxes every other week (bi-weekly), as opposed to just quarterly (once every 3 months), like all other excise taxes.

Once in a great while, the Congress actually does something right. Imagine that!
 
Here is the background on this. The tax on guns and ammunition was first imposed by the Pittman-Robertson Act, back in the 1930's. All revenues were earmarked to go to state wildlife conservation agencies. Later, about the 1970's, IIRC, the tax was extended to archery and fishing tackle. Note that all of this was long before either Heller or McDonald came down from the Supreme Court. Also, please note that books, Bibles, religious supplies, and a lot of other stuff related to the First Amendment are still subject to state sales taxes. It seems foolish to tax anything related to a constitutional right, but that is the world we live in boys and girls. And, so long as the revenues from the tax on guns and ammunition goes to wildlife conservation, then I will live with it.
 
Kind of OT; but one aspect of P-R that should be reformed is to direct the excise taxes toward range construction and maintenance as well as wildlife conservation. As it stands right now, competitive shooters pay a good chunk of the P-R taxes; but unless they also hunt & fish, they enjoy few of the benefits.
 
The only reason to vote against this bill, would be to keep the firearms industry saddled with a more expensive method of payment than other industries.
Click to expand...
We can be sure that no matter how misguided Ron Paul's vote may be on this, that his reason would NOT have been to burden the firearms industry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top