Since the law supposedly has an out for conscientious objectors, and the infirm/prohibited, this law doesn't even compel making a choice, merely strongly suggests one do so. The people in this small town will be more encouraged than the rest of the US to decide if they're pro-2A, or pro-control.
Mandatory gun ownership
- Thread starter 2ndsojourn
- Start date
Since the law supposedly has an out for conscientious objectors, and the infirm/prohibited, this law doesn't even compel making a choice, merely strongly suggests one do so. The people in this small town will be more encouraged than the rest of the US to decide if they're pro-2A, or pro-control.
hardworker
New member
I think that any law that requires an individual to own a firearm goes against what this country was founded on. Just because it fits with pro-gun agendas doesn't make it right.
But the current law is written so that it has no real teeth, since anyone can claim they're against gun ownership.
But the current law is written so that it has no real teeth, since anyone can claim they're against gun ownership.
There should be a tax deduction for those who reduce burden on law enforcement
by taking personal responsibility for their own safety and that of their family.
I actually like this idea. I like what the city of Nelson did, too, but it is really only symbolic and can only survive as a law because it will never be enforced (and thus never face a legal challenge).
However, either a tax penalty for non gun owners or a tax deduction for gun owners would make a lot of sense and would be more likely to survive a legal challenge than forced gun ownership. I think most of us would agree that households with firearms are (or hypothetically should be) less reliant on law enforcement agencies and personnel for protection. Conversely, households without guns necessarily rely more on law enforcement and potentially use more government resources. See e.g. Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke's recent PSA. http://youtu.be/-8TCx-sM1vw
His point isn't exactly my point, but you get the idea: Providing all this protection is very costly and our resources are stretched to the limit. Armed, educated private citizens can help reduce the burden on police departments.
If you take a gun safety course, it sure would be nice if you were able to deduct the cost of the course from your income for tax purposes. If you own at least one firearm and have completed a qualifying gun safety class within a certain number of years, it would be nice if you could claim an annual tax deduction for helping to reduce the burden on police, sheriffs, district attorneys, solicitors, etc.
If you give a tax break for something, you are encouraging that behavior. So if governments want more well-trained gun owners to help take the burden off their law enforcement efforts they could create tax incentives like those discussed above.
Thoughts?
By the way, I am a new member of this site and a relatively new gun owner. This is my first post here. I have really enjoyed reading the posts on the forum and have learned a ton in a short amount of time.
by taking personal responsibility for their own safety and that of their family.
I actually like this idea. I like what the city of Nelson did, too, but it is really only symbolic and can only survive as a law because it will never be enforced (and thus never face a legal challenge).
However, either a tax penalty for non gun owners or a tax deduction for gun owners would make a lot of sense and would be more likely to survive a legal challenge than forced gun ownership. I think most of us would agree that households with firearms are (or hypothetically should be) less reliant on law enforcement agencies and personnel for protection. Conversely, households without guns necessarily rely more on law enforcement and potentially use more government resources. See e.g. Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke's recent PSA. http://youtu.be/-8TCx-sM1vw
His point isn't exactly my point, but you get the idea: Providing all this protection is very costly and our resources are stretched to the limit. Armed, educated private citizens can help reduce the burden on police departments.
If you take a gun safety course, it sure would be nice if you were able to deduct the cost of the course from your income for tax purposes. If you own at least one firearm and have completed a qualifying gun safety class within a certain number of years, it would be nice if you could claim an annual tax deduction for helping to reduce the burden on police, sheriffs, district attorneys, solicitors, etc.
If you give a tax break for something, you are encouraging that behavior. So if governments want more well-trained gun owners to help take the burden off their law enforcement efforts they could create tax incentives like those discussed above.
Thoughts?
By the way, I am a new member of this site and a relatively new gun owner. This is my first post here. I have really enjoyed reading the posts on the forum and have learned a ton in a short amount of time.
Evan Thomas
Inactive
Pigcheese, welcome to TFL.
The tax deduction idea is an interesting one. I see at least two problems with it, however.
It'll never happen, at least at the federal level.
But even it it did, or if it were done at the state level, I'd be concerned that the idea that gun owners were "helping" law enforcement would spill over into the way that at least some gun owners think about themselves. Unfortunately, it's not uncommon for some to have a notion that a license to carry is somehow a permit to "play cop," rather than being about self-defense. Whether you choose to carry a gun, or just keep one or more at home for defensive purposes, it's first and foremost about protecting yourself and your family, not about helping the community.
I think one might also make the case that either mandatory gun ownership or a tax deduction for same would penalize folks with less money, for whom the price of a reliable gun, and the necessary training to use it effectively, might be a heavy burden.
And I can see some potential for a vicious circle here: tax deductions for gun owners would mean less money in the pot, which would likely mean cutting funding for law enforcement, which would... you get the idea.
The tax deduction idea is an interesting one. I see at least two problems with it, however.
It'll never happen, at least at the federal level.
But even it it did, or if it were done at the state level, I'd be concerned that the idea that gun owners were "helping" law enforcement would spill over into the way that at least some gun owners think about themselves. Unfortunately, it's not uncommon for some to have a notion that a license to carry is somehow a permit to "play cop," rather than being about self-defense. Whether you choose to carry a gun, or just keep one or more at home for defensive purposes, it's first and foremost about protecting yourself and your family, not about helping the community.
I think one might also make the case that either mandatory gun ownership or a tax deduction for same would penalize folks with less money, for whom the price of a reliable gun, and the necessary training to use it effectively, might be a heavy burden.
And I can see some potential for a vicious circle here: tax deductions for gun owners would mean less money in the pot, which would likely mean cutting funding for law enforcement, which would... you get the idea.
Last edited:
mrbatchelor
New member
Along the lines of tax breaks, but different, many concealed weapons permit training organizations in SC will give free certification classes to women who show that they have a valid restraining order against a former domestic partner. (I think it should work both ways, but that's a different rant.)
The SC CWP permit is $50, which is waived for retired LEOs. Quite frankly, the highest crime is in the lowest income areas, so I wrote to my state Senator and Representative asking them to introduce legislation to waive the CWP fee for anyone who has be granted a restraining order. And I wrote the Lt. Gov and the Gov asking them to support it.
So far no one seems to be thrilled about it. I think the idea of putting more guns in the highest crime neighborhoods is unnerving to them. But if we actually believe the rhetoric we speak, then we need to put our money where our mouths are. Or in this case, our money waivers.
The SC CWP permit is $50, which is waived for retired LEOs. Quite frankly, the highest crime is in the lowest income areas, so I wrote to my state Senator and Representative asking them to introduce legislation to waive the CWP fee for anyone who has be granted a restraining order. And I wrote the Lt. Gov and the Gov asking them to support it.
So far no one seems to be thrilled about it. I think the idea of putting more guns in the highest crime neighborhoods is unnerving to them. But if we actually believe the rhetoric we speak, then we need to put our money where our mouths are. Or in this case, our money waivers.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
A tax deduction declares you own guns - registration - don't you think?
Oops.
Oops.
What does this mean? I believe I don't want to own a gun. What do I have to do to prove this? Do I have to show some affiliation to a non- gunowning group? Do I have to sign a waiver?
Seriously, I think gun ownership should always be an individual's choice and not mandated by anyone else. I kind of like the idea that they are trying to go the opposite direction of gun banners, but to require gun ownership is just as wrong as denying it.
Spats McGee
Administrator
I do not think that mandating gun ownership is a good idea. I think the RKBA also carries a right to not keep or bear arms, just as the right to free speech includes a right to not speak.
Tax credit . . . gee, however will the IRS decide whether someone is qualified? Oh, yeah, by requiring a list of firearms, complete with make, model and serial number.
Tax credit . . . gee, however will the IRS decide whether someone is qualified? Oh, yeah, by requiring a list of firearms, complete with make, model and serial number.
As I type this the Town of Byron here in Maine is having a town meeting and a town article making gun and ammo ownership mandatory is one of the things being voted on. Of course most stuff like this is symbolic only. My personal feelings are that the government (Federal, state or local) should stay out of citizen's personal lives. We should be able to own or not own what we want in our homes.
Here's the link:
http://www.wcsh6.com/news/article/234685/314/Byron-residents-consider-making-gun-ownership-mandatory
Here's the link:
http://www.wcsh6.com/news/article/234685/314/Byron-residents-consider-making-gun-ownership-mandatory
I just finished looking up the one actually on the books in Kennesaw, BBQBob. It looks functionally the same as the one currently proposed by Nelson, the town in this post. In fact, given the quote in the linked article, I'd guess it was more than "modeled on" Kennesaw's ordinance, and it's just flat-out plagiarized.
If you actually read Kennesaw 34-22 It's symbolic. I'm not particularly fond of it, but I disagree with "requires all households to have a gun" as much as I disagree with "No politician wants to take away your guns" - quotes from Cuomo and Feinstein belie the second statement, and the actual law belies the first.
You must have a gun. Unless you're not allowed to have a gun. Or can't afford a gun. Or just plain don't like guns. This does not mandate gun ownership, it's symbolic. And as one lawmaker said, it's a lot like sticking a Protected by ADT sign in every yard. You know some of them are accurate, but you don't know which ones.
If you actually read Kennesaw 34-22 It's symbolic. I'm not particularly fond of it, but I disagree with "requires all households to have a gun" as much as I disagree with "No politician wants to take away your guns" - quotes from Cuomo and Feinstein belie the second statement, and the actual law belies the first.
You must have a gun. Unless you're not allowed to have a gun. Or can't afford a gun. Or just plain don't like guns. This does not mandate gun ownership, it's symbolic. And as one lawmaker said, it's a lot like sticking a Protected by ADT sign in every yard. You know some of them are accurate, but you don't know which ones.
Sorry for being a newb / clueless, but lots of things disclose the fact you own a gun
Lots of things declare the fact that you own guns:
Oops?
I readily admit you guys probably know much more about these topics than me. You have been in the trenches (as it were) for many years and here is Pigcheese, he just showed up and has an opinion. Please correct me if I am wrong. But if I have a CCW permit, the gubmint already knows I am packing. What difference does a tax deduction make?
Plus you don't have to claim it. It is optional.
I realize their are real problems with using the tax code to encourage gun ownership, but I don't think universal registration is one of them. Any legislature with the cajones to enact a tax deduction for gun ownership would never touch registration.
Nevertheless, given the feedback here, I will table the proposal. Thank you for your comments.
Lots of things declare the fact that you own guns:
- You applied for a CCW permit.
- You purchased a gun through an FFL dealer.
- You had your background checked when you purchased a gun.
Oops?
I readily admit you guys probably know much more about these topics than me. You have been in the trenches (as it were) for many years and here is Pigcheese, he just showed up and has an opinion. Please correct me if I am wrong. But if I have a CCW permit, the gubmint already knows I am packing. What difference does a tax deduction make?
Plus you don't have to claim it. It is optional.
I realize their are real problems with using the tax code to encourage gun ownership, but I don't think universal registration is one of them. Any legislature with the cajones to enact a tax deduction for gun ownership would never touch registration.
Nevertheless, given the feedback here, I will table the proposal. Thank you for your comments.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Well, if you purchase through an FFL the records stay local with the FFL - unless they go out of business.
Of course, there are ways to trace and keep records. However, we don't need an IRS record.
Of course, there are ways to trace and keep records. However, we don't need an IRS record.
Spats McGee
Administrator
RE: lots of things declaring that someone owns a firearm:
There's no requirement in my state that I own a gun to get my CHCL, or that I give the gov't any information on my firearms ownership to qualify. It may be reasonable to presume that I do, but unlike my tax documents, I don't have to swear under penalty of perjury that I own a gun.Pigcheese said:
In theory, those records are held only by a private entity (the FFL), unless and until BATFE needs to look at them.Pigcheese said:
In theory (again), the NICS records are to be destroyed within (I think) 24 hours. (Someone who knows more about this than I, please clarify this one for me.)Pigcheese said:
Last edited:
Senate committee learns feds get Missouri CCW files
http://www.missourinet.com/2013/04/11/senate-committee-learns-feds-get-missouri-ccw-files-audio/
http://www.missourinet.com/2013/04/11/senate-committee-learns-feds-get-missouri-ccw-files-audio/
I can see from your latter statement that you see the real problem with this but you just haven't convinced yourself this isn't still something worth discussing.
For me, this is lowly, disgraceful, this is a page from the lib's book. This is the same thinking they use and like. It's all about manipulating the system to their own benefit at others' expense to achieve their social utopia.
It's just like the cigarette taxes. They raised the taxes and raised them until people couldn't afford to smoke. "The money will be used for the victims of smoking", that didn't happen, that money went everywhere but to help smokers. The ends justify the means.
Now it's guns they are talking about taxing. This idea is simply fighting fire with fire, but this kind of fire burns bad and it never does anything good. no matter how you justify it it's wrong.
Taxation is not a social engineering tool