Tax on firearms now that its an individual right??

[ptoguy2002]

I was wondering about this:
Now that the right to own firearms is an individual right, is the SOT or excise tax (whatever they call it) that is on every firearm not legal??

[stag1500]

That's not going to fly for the same reason they don't tax people for going to church or for buying newspapers at a newstand.

[RANGER295]

That's not going to fly for the same reason they don't tax people for going to church or for buying newspapers at a newstand.

Your statement doesn’t makes sense. If you used your reasoning, that would be a reason the OP’s question would fly.

Anyway this was a conversation that I had with my FFL right after Heller. The NFA tax, DROS, maybe even sales tax on a weapon should all be illegal. Think poll/voting taxes in the south.

[GuyW]

Your statement doesn’t makes sense. If you used your reasoning, that would be a reason the OP’s question would fly.


He was agreeing with the OP that it wasn't "legal"....

[sorensen440]

Interesting question.
Being in the wine industry I am very much against excise taxes
I don't think something being a individual right will change it though.
anyone know how much the excise tax is on guns?
on alcohol it can get very expensive at the higher alcohol range

[sorensen440]

He was agreeing with the OP that it wasn't "legal"....

I think your right but that's now how I read it at first either

[bdsmchs]

Interesting question.
Being in the wine industry I am very much against excise taxes
I don't think something being a individual right will change it though.
anyone know how much the excise tax is on guns?
on alcohol it can get very expensive at the higher alcohol range

According to the latest issue of American Rifleman (who actually support the excise tax), it's 10% on handguns, and 11% on rifles/shotguns.

You actually skirt around the excise tax when you buy a stripped lower. As soon as a single part is placed into the lower, then the tax must be paid.

Anyways, the NRA supports the tax because (supposedly) the tax goes directly into wildlife management and conservation, a big win for hunters.

If that's true, then I don't fully oppose the tax either. But 10/11% is quite a lot, especially since you're then paying sales tax of 8%'ish (in CA) on top of that!.

All in all, I don't really think the excise tax is TOOOO bad. But I have a huge problem with the NFA tax. 200$ is excessive. Even today. I would favor a small (10-20$) "administrative" fee for handling NFA paperwork, but that's about it. Hell, since the BATFE still makes money on 5$ AOW transfers, why not just make it 5$ across the board?

[HunterJim]

The theory is those taxes go to support worthy goals, but anything that is run by the government is going to cost >30% of the proceeds just to run the system.

jim

[sorensen440]

Extra taxes for worthy goals are a huge part of the problem with this country.

[nicki]

The NFA tax was not enacted to raise revenue for the government, but to make a end run around the 2nd amendment.

Back in 1934, the courts had not yet adopted the collective rights view.

Of course back then, they viewed that the bill of rights didn't apply to the states either, so that is why the constitutionality of state gun laws probably wasn't challenged.

When guns laws came into effect we didn't have the NRA we have today. In fact the NRA actually promoted alot of gun control laws back then.

Fortunately the NRA has changed their ways.

I could see the courts upholding the standard excise taxes on "sporting arms".

Think about this one.

"Sporting Arms" are designed for primarily for recreational use, as such, the excess tax collected from them are used to provide funds so that there is habitat and game to hunt.

Now, if we are to challenge exicse taxes on arms designed and suitable for "militia purposes", arms that have limited "sporting purposes", that may present a interesting challenge for the courts.

What such a challenge could create is classes of arms, "sporting arms" and "militia arms".

In fact, I think this might be something to look at for the following reasons.

Sporting arms in fact get value from the excess tax, it was pushed by sportsmen anyway, so they don't lose anything if it is upheld.

Militia arms generally are not used primarily for hunting, so the excess tax for maintaining the outdoors for game is really taxation without representation.

It is a fee collected with no benefit and it is a tax on a fundamental right.

This would be kind of poetic because the evil black rifles, shotguns and handguns that many on this board love and the anti's are targeting first would be constitutionally protected.

Such a ruling would give us a opportunity to really educate the public as to the true meaning and purpose of the 2nd amendment anyway.

Of course there is the issue of the "Commerce Clause", but that is for another post:D

Nicki

[ptoguy2002]

The commerce claus doesn't really apply to this, IMHO, but I've never read what the NFA actually says on this, but its really not trying to regulate interstate commerce. By that logic though too, I should be able to go down to Entreprise and buy a FAL without an excise tax, as there is no interstate commerce.
I don't have a problem with state sales tax, it is a sale after all, and PPTs aren't taxed so you can't claim that a firearm transfer is taxed, just a sale. Kind of like sales tax on your Time magazine or newspaper.
BUT, the federal tax though, that is specific to firearms, is now a taxation on an individual right, IMHO.
As for the NFA stuff, that would depend if they ever ruled that you had an individual right for an NFA firearms, not dangerous and unusual or in common usage. IMHO, for now, that is probably best left alone or separated from other title 1 arms for now, and worry about it later.
Looking at it very narrowly and conservatively, seeings how the court's ruling concerned handguns, the federal tax on handguns needs to go away.
As far as my logic takes me anyway.

[Army]

The Pittman-Robertson Act created a tax on all sporting goods (shooting, hunting,fishing, boats, ammo, lures, archery gear etc) which goes directly to F&G for use on public ranges, hunting reserves, wetland recovery etc.

The law specifies that ALL PRA revenue goes to sporting/conservation use ONLY. Clinton tried to syphon off a few million of this, and got his pee-pee spanked for it. This is one tax that actually does exactly what it is designed to do. I believe the total is in the $billions now.




Sportsman have recovered millions of acres of wetlands, recovered dozens of species, and have returned endangered and threatened animals to huntable/manageable levels and had removed them from the Endangered Species list.

PETA has failed to do anything about the environment, except to kill domesticated animals, and bomb/burn research facilities.

[JeffM]

Extra taxes for worthy goals are a huge part of the problem with this country.

A big +1 to that.

[ilbob]

I have not really considered this a whole lot. For the most part excise taxes on sporting goods are used for mostly things that benefit the people paying the tax, much like motor fuel taxes do.

Getting it overturned would be cutting our nose off to spite our face.

I don't think the courts are going to care much about sporting purpose or militia arms. The reality is that keeping arms of all kinds are now a protected right. Whether you can tax that will be seen, but my guess is that because it is a tax on a wide spectrum of goods, and not deliberately targeted to prevent someone from exercising a right, it will probably be upheld.

[dustoff31]

I'm not holding my breath waiting for any tax to go away. The best we can hope for is that existing taxes are not increased and new taxes are not created.

But what if the SOT and excise taxes did go away? Do you think the price of guns would decrease 10%? I doubt it.

[Telperion]

But what if the SOT and excise taxes did go away? Do you think the price of guns would decrease 10%? I doubt it.
SOT and manufacturer license fees are a big barrier to entry to the business. Reducing or eliminating those hurdles would encourage competition, and eventually lead to lower prices and more choices.

[dustoff31]

SOT and manufacturer license fees are a big barrier to entry to the business. Reducing or eliminating those hurdles would encourage competition, and eventually lead to lower prices and more choices.

The excise and NFA taxes have nothing to do with license fees. The FFL fees would remain the same. They are not taxes. The SOT is only $1,000 a year or so, less for those just starting out.

I doubt that firearms manufacurers would drop the price of their guns 10% if the excise tax went away. Most people are not aware of the excise tax in the first place.

[bohoki]

last time i checked there is still tax on books how is that not a "press"

[freakshow10mm]

If you make less than 50 firearms there is no FET due.

Want to try a lawsuit? Argue this:

"No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it nor charge a fee therefore."

Murdock v PA 1943

Make the "spirit" apply to the federal government.

I am opposed to all taxes by all levels of governments. They should run strictly on donations by the citizens. If we shrunk the side of the government down to it's Constitutional powers we wouldn't need a host of government agencies, including the IRS, and the government would operate on a strict budget. The money you give to the city would go in the city budget, the county in the county budget, the state in the state budget, and the federal in the federal budget.

[nick]

Extra taxes for worthy goals are a huge part of the problem with this country.

+1. Just because you have a worthy cause (and one can argue just how worthy most causes are. Who determines that, anyway?) doesn't mean you can tax to support it. Since they collect the income tax, the government ought to figure out how to use THAT better. When the government is efficient enough with the money it already gets, I may consider being ok with more taxes. Until then, it's just supporting the government's spending habit.

[nick]

Any gun can be used for militia purposes, that's the beauty of it.

[nick]

I have not really considered this a whole lot. For the most part excise taxes on sporting goods are used for mostly things that benefit the people paying the tax, much like motor fuel taxes do.

Getting it overturned would be cutting our nose off to spite our face.

I don't think the courts are going to care much about sporting purpose or militia arms. The reality is that keeping arms of all kinds are now a protected right. Whether you can tax that will be seen, but my guess is that because it is a tax on a wide spectrum of goods, and not deliberately targeted to prevent someone from exercising a right, it will probably be upheld.

Motor fuel taxes in California benefit the General Fund. Look at the roads the next time you drive :)