Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumX-post: We're the NRA and we're responsible gun owners, just not responsible for the cost...
Last edited Tue Aug 25, 2015, 04:05 PM - Edit history (1)
"We're the NRA and we're responsible gun owners, just not responsible for the cost of gun
violence."
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/NRA-sues-over-Seattles-adoption-of-gun-violence-tax-322709641.html
Officials modeled the tax after a similar one in Chicago's Cook County, Illinois; the NRA said Chicago is the only other city with such a measure. Seattle's tax, which would take effect in January, would add $25 to the price of each firearm sold in the city, plus 2 or 5 cents per round of ammunition, depending on the type. The revenue would be used for gun safety research and gun violence prevention programs.
====
According to Seattle City Council President Tim Burgess, who proposed the tax, the direct medical costs of treating 253 gunshot victims at Harborview Medical Center in 2014 totaled more than $17 million. Taxpayers paid more than $12 million of that total. City officials estimate that the new tax would bring in $300,000 to $500,000 a year, but gun shop owners told council members those numbers were inflated. They said the law would cost them customers and sales and could force them to move out of the city.
Comments by the original poster:
Run of the mill pistols sell for $300 to $400 each depending on make and model, much more for specialty items and AR-15s go for $600 to $800 each, again depending on make and model. How is an extra $25 going to sway the decision to purchase to "too expensive" category?
Two to five cents a round. Is that so draconian? A NATO 5.56 round (AR-15) sells for .45 each. A 5c increase makes it .50 each and is a 10% increase. If you fire 500 rounds at the range that's $25 or about what your lunch will cost for the day. So while the % increase looks large, the actual cost increase isn't that much. Nine MM pistol ammo is about .25 a round, so the % increase is twice that of the 5.56 but the cost increase for 500 rounds is the same, about $25 or $1 for a box of 20. The stuff I shoot is at least $1.00 a round so I wouldn't even notice the % increase and after 50-60 rounds your shoulder is ready for a rest so the actual cost increase wouldn't be noticeable either.
People who drive on US highways pay a fuel tax to maintain those highways, why isn't it appropriate for people who shoot to pay a tax to cover the cost to the state of that activity?
Oh, I forgot, gunz is sooooooo special.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12629546
Just a couple comments by me:
The author hopes you don't see the slight of hand here. The activity of Shooting, in general, costs the state nothing. The tiniest subset of shooting, gun violence, is what costs the state.
Cost is beside the point. If you're placing financial responsibility for gun violence on people that didn't commit any, you're wrong. And yes Virginia, taxing the lot to pay for the .01 percent that misuse guns, is doing exactly that.
This is the equivalent of placing a tax on speech to cover the costs of those who shout fire in theaters and incite riots.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)And the biggest point is the tax is illegal under state law.
If they want to pass the tax, they need to get rid of the preemption laws in that state, then pass the tax.
An illegal law is just that, illegal, and I have no problem somebody suing to have it removed. Is 5 cents a round draconian? Maybe maybe not. You know what a tax of 5 cents a round is though? Illegal in that state.
This is of course pending the decision in the court. Maybe the courts will favor the city, maybe not, but that is why we have a court system to figure these cases out.
I'm going to help you out a bit also.
Link to article:http://www.komonews.com/news/local/NRA-sues-over-Seattles-adoption-of-gun-violence-tax-322709641.html
Link to other DU thread where free speech is not allowed:http://www.democraticunderground.com/12629546
beevul
(12,194 posts)
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)They like to use this line a lot but what other legal product requires innocent people to pay for the illegal misuse of the product?
Essentially, they're complaining guns are being treated differently to make the case that guns be treated differently. They're disingenuousness and hypocrisy knows no bounds.
DonP
(6,185 posts)I'm guessing that the "Minneapolis Star Tribune v. Commissioner" case might come into play as this works its way through the courts.
SCOTUS and the Appellate Courts don't look kindly on cities or states that decide to tax things that impact rights like freedom of the press, voting, etc.
Post Heller and McDonald, I'm thinking they may view the 2nd anendment the same way, especially since guns and ammunition already have a special taxes on them.
If (or when) Seattle loses and has to pay the NRA six figure $$$ legal fees, and the whining starts about "taking money from the schools and fire department, etc." it will be "interesting" to see if there is any follow up in Castle Bansalot.
But I'm sure our latest Canadian based NRA hater will write a check to help Seattle out with their legal "defence" costs.
beevul
(12,194 posts)It has been asserted that The city attorney thinks the law will hold up under the power to tax granted the city, over in the other group.
If I recall correctly, Fenty swore up and down that the DC ban was constitutional, and Rham after him in Chicago.
I'm not sure I'd be putting much stock in what an attorney representing the anti-gun viewpoint had to say, myself.
DonP
(6,185 posts)And based on the track record in court of "Cities vs. NRA/SAF" et. al. I wouldn't cover that bet.
I wonder how much the newspapers and Billionaires that supported this will kick in to make up for the city's losses to the school funds, police and fire pensions etc. if/when they lose?
They wont, but they might be for stopping and frisking you for for free, if you meet their...qualifications.
