Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
And if so, is that necessarily a bad thing? 26 USC 4181 imposes an excise tax on the manufacture and sale of firearms and ammunition. That tax is used to fund efforts to use government land for hunting and recreation.
Recently, H. R. 510 (117 cosponsors) and its companion bill S. 632 (29 cocponsors) have been introduced. These two bills aim to reform the firearms excise tax. In addition, Michael Bane has made a convincing argument that the tax should be reformed not by eliminating it; but by allowing it to be used to build ranges and support shooters as well as hunters (since recreational shooters actually pay considerably more in excise taxes).
On the flip side, if the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental individual right enshrined in the Bill of Rights, it can be argued it shouldn't be taxed at all.
So, my questions are:
1. Should the excise tax exist at all?
2. If the excise tax can be reformed to benefit the people who pay the most taxes (recreational shooters), won't it ultimately benefit the shooting community by opening up more lands and ranges?
Recently, H. R. 510 (117 cosponsors) and its companion bill S. 632 (29 cocponsors) have been introduced. These two bills aim to reform the firearms excise tax. In addition, Michael Bane has made a convincing argument that the tax should be reformed not by eliminating it; but by allowing it to be used to build ranges and support shooters as well as hunters (since recreational shooters actually pay considerably more in excise taxes).
On the flip side, if the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental individual right enshrined in the Bill of Rights, it can be argued it shouldn't be taxed at all.
So, my questions are:
1. Should the excise tax exist at all?
2. If the excise tax can be reformed to benefit the people who pay the most taxes (recreational shooters), won't it ultimately benefit the shooting community by opening up more lands and ranges?