H.R. 3018: Gun Violence Prevention and Safe Communities Act of 2013

C

csmsss

New member
Who didn't see this coming?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/26/house-dems-seek-to-tax-gun-owners-with-new-bill/

Representatives Pascrell (NJ) and Davis (IL) have introduced a bill to impose massively increased tax rates on firearms and ammunition purchases, as well as NFA transfer fees (from $200 to $500) and, if the article is correct, a new $100 fee on non-NFA transfers.

This is obviously not going to make it out of the House this session, but does reveal their map for the future should the gun-grabbers achieve a majority in the House in the 2014 elections.
 
U.S. Representatives William Pascrell, D-N.J., and Danny Davis, D-Ill. are sponsoring a new House bill entitled "Gun Violence Prevention and Safe Communities Act of 2013" (H.R. 3018).

The full text of the bill may be viewed here:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr3018/text

The bill includes the following provisions:
  • Increase in federal excise tax on handguns (both pistols and revolvers) from 11% to 20%
  • Increase in federal excise tax on ammunition from 11% to 50%
  • Increase in NFA tax (pre-'86 autos, SBRs, suppressors, etc.) from $200 to $500
  • Increase in NFA AOW tax from $5 to $100
  • Increases in special (occupational) tax for importers, manufacturers, and dealers
  • Adding semiautomatic pistols "chambered for cartridges commonly considered rifle rounds, configured with receivers commonly associated with rifles and capable of accepting detachable magazines" to the list of items taxable as NFA items (26 USC § 5845).

Initial support for this bill appears weak. Despite this, it bears watching. What do you all think about the chances of this bill or a modified version of it passing?
 
0% chance passing as is. Not much in a similar form.

This is when the NRA is at its best.

Not surprising considering where the sponsors are from.
 
Agree. This won't pass as it is essentially a poll tax designed to keep guns out of the hands of the poor.
 
Last edited:
Nano... the last item, concerning handgun rounds "chambered for cartridges commonly considered rifle rounds..." sounds similar to a CA case, the one that knocked down AB962 for vagueness. I think it is Parker v California, number 22 on Al's Current 2A Cases page 1. The concept here is no less vague if you ask me. I agree with TXAZ that this probably won't get any real traction. Just grandstanding for constituents.
 
The full text of the bill may be viewed here
Click to expand...
...as well as the fact that it has ONE cosponsor. It's not going anywhere.

Let's remember that anyone in Congress can propose a bill to do anything at pretty much any time. No sense in worrying at every one.
 
No, it's not going to pass. I'll just observe, though, that the bill blatantly discriminates against those with fewer financial resources. I might cut back in how much I shoot but it won't keep me from owning firearms. However, it would put gun ownership out of reach for some people who struggle to pay the rent. That is exactly the aim behind some of the old "Saturday night special" laws. In other words, it's about controlling the "poor ignorant masses" who no doubt elected these legislators to begin with.
 
The concept here is no less vague if you ask me
Click to expand...

Oh that pistol concept is fairly obvious, and straight forward. It's the AR-15 pistols, and their ilk.

Edit To Add: And truth be told, IF it did go anywhere, it's more likely to get all excise on firearms thrown out. Pittman-Robertson passed before the RKBA was recognized as an individual right. And not very many of us on this side of the debate want to challenge it right now. First, it would be very hard to do so from the high road. Second, it's a pretty decent talking point for us- i.e.How much money have us gun loving nut jobs put into the environment.

However, were it to be increased, that would probably make others, maybe even Gura squeal enough to challenge P-R in the courts.
 
Last edited:
Oh that pistol concept is fairly obvious, and straight forward. It's the AR-15 pistols, and their ilk.
Click to expand...
+1, and furthermore, I think it's unlikely that the NFA will realistically be expanded to include such pistols, as such a move is likely to be challenged in court under the Heller "common use" test.
 
I don't think that any such challenge would be the Pittman-Robertson taxes, as originally passed. The challenge would be to the legislation that increased the taxes for reasons other than what Pittman-Robertson was originally set up for.

So that the increased amount of taxation (the 9% increase in firearms and the 39% increase in ammo) would not go to the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Act but would be divided in the following manner:

  • 35 percent of such amounts shall be available for community-oriented policing services grants for the hiring and rehiring of additional career law enforcement officers.
  • 35 percent of such amounts shall be available for the Project Safe Neighborhoods.
  • 10 percent of such amounts shall be available for the Centers for Disease Control National Center for Injury Prevention and Control for purposes of research on gun violence and its prevention.
  • 5 percent of such amounts shall be available for the National Criminal History Improvement Program.
  • 5 percent of such amounts shall be available for the NICS Act Record Improvement Program.
  • 5 percent for the Community-Based Violence Prevention Field-Initiated Research and Evaluation Program of the Department of Justice.
  • 5 percent of such amounts shall be available for the Secretary of Education.

Nowhere in the Act (as currently applied) are US and State governments exempted from the excise tax (while this is true of the Act itself, there may be such exemptions under the referenced IRS codes that I have not found). That would change as this new legislation explicitly exempts the US Government (and all of its agencies) from the burden of paying the excise tax.

All of this would essentially gut the purpose of the excise tax, as laid out in 16 USC § 669.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top