Is it legal to tax guns?

[Skel]

Poll taxes were legal. The only reason they aren’t now is because there is an expressly written clause in a constitutional amendment saying they aren’t.

Broadly speaking though yes, we could just tax guns a bunch. There would be a limit as sufficiently high tax rates would be viewed as a back door ban, but we could definitely tax them much more than they are now.

It’s not a bad idea, either, as it would probably lower gun ownership rates.

While you were doing the back door ban, you would also be unintentionally telling lower income people their lives don't deserve the same tools to protect themselves.

 

[fskimospy]

While you were doing the back door ban, you would also be unintentionally telling lower income people their lives don't deserve the same tools to protect themselves.

Well research shows gun ownership makes you more likely to be a victim of homicide, not less, so it’s not exactly a great means of protection anyway, haha.

Regardless though, isn’t that the case for every regressive tax or fee? (As I assume this one would be) I mean is car registration telling lower income people they don’t deserve the ability to transport themselves to work? Maybe, but it seems like we already do that plenty in society without much complaint.

 

[Skel]

Well research shows gun ownership makes you more likely to be a victim of homicide, not less, so it’s not exactly a great means of protection anyway, haha.

Regardless though, isn’t that the case for every regressive tax or fee? (As I assume this one would be) I mean is car registration telling lower income people they don’t deserve the ability to transport themselves to work? Maybe, but it seems like we already do that plenty in society without much complaint.

I've always wondered how they did that study. I'm not saying it's wrong, it's a logical argument in any regards, but I wonder what they factored into that and what they pushed to the side. I mean there are studies that show that the 90s assault ban did nothing to curb shooting in the US, so you can pretty much show anything.. still not saying you mentioned is wrong, please don't misunderstand me.

I loath to bring autos into a gun convo as they're two separate universes, but I do want to point out that there is no tax on private sellers. We're not backdoor denying them the ability to get a car financially from the government side, which a special tax on all firearms would do.

Still not saying your study is wrong

 

[Viper1j]

Would it be legal for state goverments to apply management strategies used to curb tobacco use and apply them to gun violence?

For example, if states were to calculate the cost to society of one years worth of gun violence (attach a fixed cost to each human life [the government already does this for example with civilian deaths in wars for compensation purposes], add up all the physical damages to environments , etc) and then create a gun sale and gun ownership specific tax (for example in my city I pay a tax purely for car ownership to the city which is how they try and curb car use in an increasingly congested city) that covers 200% of those costs is that legal?

Can they just decide to tax gun ownership to make it increasingly cost prohibitive to even own a gun?

It's legal, smart, and I'm 1000% behind it! Primarily, because as a former smoker, nobody spoke up for us when taxes were constantly being increased. We were the scapegoats of society. Every time the basketball team needed new jerseys, or a road needed to be built, everybody got together and said "let's just raise taxes on cigarettes!"

Then, when people stopped smoking, just as I predicted, they went after the fat ones. Limiting the amount of soda you could purchase, increasing taxes on candy, cookies, and soda. Now that people have been forced to live a healthier lifestyle, they need to find a new target to bring in the money they're losing.

Only 2 things remain. One, is the single most addictive substance on the planet, used by millions of people every morning. And it's 100% legal.

Caffeine. If you think Hong Kong is bad, watch the riots when they come for your Starbucks.

And the other? Guns. Although I think it might be better if they passed a law setting a minimum price (much like they do with packs of cigarettes.)

The federal minimum price for one bullet, should be $100.

 

[Skel]

It's legal, smart, and I'm 1000% behind it! Primarily, because as a former smoker, nobody spoke up for us when taxes are constantly being increased. We were scapegoats of society. Every time the basketball team needed new jerseys, or road need to be built, everybody got together and said "let's just raise taxes on cigarettes!"

Then, when people stopped smoking, just as I predicted, they went after the fat ones. Limiting the amount of soda you could purchase, increasing taxes on candy, cookies, and soda. Now that people have been forced to live a healthier lifestyle, they need to find a new target to bring in the money they're losing.

Only 2 things remain. One, is the single most addictive substance on the planet, used by millions of people every morning. And it's 100% legal.

Caffeine. If you think Hong Kong is bad, watch the riots when they come for your Starbucks.

In the other? Guns. Although I think it might be better if they pass the law setting a minimum price (much like they do with packs of cigarettes.)

The federal minimum price for one bullet, should be $100.

The problem with going after the bullet is, it's something that can be made by most people (with the correct tools). Even using hand tools as people did in the past isn't as complicated or difficult as one might suspect. It'll be like full auto, or short barrel stuff, people find loopholes in the law and now we have bumpstocks and AR 'pistols'.

 

[Viper1j]

The problem with going after the bullet is, it's something that can be made by most people (with the correct tools). Even using hand tools as people did in the past isn't as complicated or difficult as one might suspect. It'll be like full auto, or short barrel stuff, people find loopholes in the law and now we have bumpstocks and AR 'pistols'.

Meth can be made by most people, but we still go after the makers.

 

[fskimospy]

I've always wondered how they did that study. I'm not saying it's wrong, it's a logical argument in any regards, but I wonder what they factored into that and what they pushed to the side. I mean there are studies that show that the 90s assault ban did nothing to curb shooting in the US, so you can pretty much show anything.. still not saying you mentioned is wrong, please don't misunderstand me.

Broadly speaking the various research on the topic looks at gun ownership data and homicides while attempting to control for things that we know affect homicide rate like crime rates, income, etc. That being said no study is perfect and so sure they could be missing something or wrong but to me it's pretty plausible because the person most likely to murder you is your significant other. Once you introduce a gun into the home you potentially escalate what might be screaming fights or fistfights into gunfights. People walk away from those other fights 99% of the time, not so much with guns.

I loath to bring autos into a gun convo as they're two separate universes, but I do want to point out that there is no tax on private sellers. We're not backdoor denying them the ability to get a car financially from the government side, which a special tax on all firearms would do.

Still not saying your study is wrong

Sure, but we do mandate registration for all autos, which is for all intents and purposes a tax by another name. So sure, a tax would restrict ownership by poor people more than rich most likely but I think that's generally true about all flat taxes.

 

[Skel]

Meth can be made by most people, but we still go after the makers.

We're also not selling meth at $100 a rock as you proposed.

 

[Skel]

Broadly speaking the various research on the topic looks at gun ownership data and homicides while attempting to control for things that we know affect homicide rate like crime rates, income, etc. That being said no study is perfect and so sure they could be missing something or wrong but to me it's pretty plausible because the person most likely to murder you is your significant other. Once you introduce a gun into the home you potentially escalate what might be screaming fights or fistfights into gunfights. People walk away from those other fights 99% of the time, not so much with guns.



Sure, but we do mandate registration for all autos, which is for all intents and purposes a tax by another name. So sure, a tax would restrict ownership by poor people more than rich most likely but I think that's generally true about all flat taxes.

I get, and even agree with the logic of the study. I just don't know how you account for things.. like crime, wouldn't that be important? Either way, I agree that bringing a gun to the party greatly increases the chance a gun would be used vs no gun at all..

As for the auto thing.. we're blurring things a bit here. Registration and licensing is a whole different thing than a tax. I am in favor of mandatory training and licensing to own a firearm, if not just to understand the legals of it. I do however have major concerns about how the data from it would be used. On top of it all.. I really really hate to say it but it's true and does factor here.. driving is a privilege in the US, guns are considered a right.

 

[Viper1j]

True, but which one kills more people?

Bullets or methamphetamine?

 

[Sunburn74]

Depends on the level of taxation and the intent behind it. Guns are already subject to the sales tax where such taxes exist. Some non-zero amount of excise tax would probably not generate strident opposition from the 2A crowd so long as it was reasonable and used for something worthwhile (just to make up something, say a one-time $20 excise tax per weapon to pay for state provided firearms safety courses). So long as you're operating in good faith then "taxing guns" is fine, but if you're using it as an end-around to basically ban guns then it's not fine.

It would be good faith to at least move societal costs of gun ownership to gun owners just like we are moving societal costs of tobacco to tobacco users. I just got a job where health care plan, life insurance and disability costs are different based on whether the person is a smoker or non smoker. I think the problem is most gun owners grossly underestimate the societal costs of gun ownership. I remember reading a piece about wildlife pollution and heavy metal toxicity from used ammo rounds left in forests by hunters. These are not cheap problems to clean up.

The real reason poll taxes were deemed unconstitutional is this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution



They were legal before that.

Interesting. A specific amendment was added.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The real reason poll taxes were deemed unconstitutional is this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution



They were legal before that.

Not exactly true. The 24th Amendment made poll taxes illegal for federal elections only, states still could and did have poll taxes for state and local elections until the SCOTUS case Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections found that poll taxes were unconstitutional in general, and it's decision was not based in the 24th Amendment but the 14th.

 

[Skel]

True, but which one kills more people?

Bullets or methamphetamine?

With respect.. does it matter? You proposed making bullets an inflated price, I pointed out that there's a big issue that would make doing anything with bullets a waste of time.

 

[brandonbull]

Would it be legal for state goverments to apply management strategies used to curb tobacco use and apply them to gun violence?

For example, if states were to calculate the cost to society of one years worth of gun violence (attach a fixed cost to each human life [the government already does this for example with civilian deaths in wars for compensation purposes], add up all the physical damages to environments , etc) and then create a gun sale and gun ownership specific tax (for example in my city I pay a tax purely for car ownership to the city which is how they try and curb car use in an increasingly congested city) that covers 200% of those costs is that legal?

Can they just decide to tax gun ownership to make it increasingly cost prohibitive to even own a gun?

What are your thoughts on applying those same "regulations" against other amendments?

 

[SMOGZINN]

I mean there are studies that show that the 90s assault ban did nothing to curb shooting in the US, so you can pretty much show anything.. still not saying you mentioned is wrong, please don't misunderstand me.

There is all sorts of reasons that the 90's assault weapon ban did not work very well, the main ones being that the bill was handicapped from the start with more the 650 models of firearms flat out exempted, and then any firearm manufactured before the ban took effect being grandfathered in, and weapon manufactures over produced so many of the banned weapons in the lead up to the bill coming into effect that we did not see a drop in availability or increase in price at all for the majority of the time the bill was in effect. We then repealed the bill just as new stock of the banned weapons were starting to run out.

Even then the studies are mixed about it's effect. While it did not drop overall gun violence much we did see a very noticeable drop in mass murders during the decade is was in effect, and when it lapsed we saw a fairly massive increase in gun violence just across the Mexican border that is attributed to firearms sold in America. I'm honestly not sure that those things are all that causally linked to the ban because as I said that ban was not in effect long enough to substantially change availability.

Registration and licensing is a whole different thing than a tax

No they are not. We call it Registration as a shorthand, the full name is Vehicle Registration Tax on the official forms. I just finished paying mine, to the county tax assessor.

 

[fskimospy]

I get, and even agree with the logic of the study. I just don't know how you account for things.. like crime, wouldn't that be important? Either way, I agree that bringing a gun to the party greatly increases the chance a gun would be used vs no gun at all.

Oh in case I was unclear, they were accounting for crime rate. So basically if two people lived in a place with an identical crime rate the one with the gun would be more likely to be the victim of homicide.

As for the auto thing.. we're blurring things a bit here. Registration and licensing is a whole different thing than a tax. I am in favor of mandatory training and licensing to own a firearm, if not just to understand the legals of it. I do however have major concerns about how the data from it would be used. On top of it all.. I really really hate to say it but it's true and does factor here.. driving is a privilege in the US, guns are considered a right.

While I agree that the right to bear arms is in the constitution and the right to drive isn't, I was just saying that we do tax things all the time in that way. In the case of auto registration I'm really not clear on how it's different than a tax.

 

[dainthomas]

Sin tax will fix gun violence problems. Why didn't they think of this?

Bonus points for the end of your post, trying to find a way to squeeze a right out of existence by kinda going around the constitution and using a little out of the box thinking. Nice.

Although I disagree with your premise (getting rid of a right), conservatives have been doing it wrt to voting since basically forever.

 

[glenn1]

Poll taxes were legal. The only reason they aren’t now is because there is an expressly written clause in a constitutional amendment saying they aren’t.

Broadly speaking though yes, we could just tax guns a bunch. There would be a limit as sufficiently high tax rates would be viewed as a back door ban, but we could definitely tax them much more than they are now.

It’s not a bad idea, either, as it would probably lower gun ownership rates.

We could likewise just tax the shit out of abortion and lower its rate also. Doesn't mean you'd think that was a great idea but I guess when your principles are purely situational like yours it doesn't matter.

 

[mdram]

its been tried
https://www.guns.com/news/2016/09/30/court-finds-1k-excise-tax-on-handguns-to-be-unconstitutional

 

[Sunburn74]

We could likewise just tax the shit out of abortion and lower its rate also. Doesn't mean you'd think that was a great idea but I guess when your principles are purely situational like yours it doesn't matter.

I'm not sure how you would tax abortion and how broadly it would be supported since abortion has no effects on people who aren't having them. For one thing you'd be taxing a health service of which many recipients are teenagers and adolescents; its hard to really stomach that I would say. Furthermore, taxing abortion brings it to the light meaning rich people's kids can no longer quietly get them because they'd have to disclose it. When the first rape victim gets thrown in jail for not paying their abortion tax, I think it'll all be over.

I however have no problem with abortion taxes. I just think there are logistically more barriers to trying something like that than for guns when the tax can be sold as covering gun related costs to the state. Its all about the issue of "legitimate interest"

its been tried
https://www.guns.com/news/2016/09/30/court-finds-1k-excise-tax-on-handguns-to-be-unconstitutional

The court found there was no legitimate interest in the excise tax and found that because this was the first place to try it, it thus was unconstitutional. It seems very weak logic and probably could be re-challenged.

One could simply say the tax is to cover state related gun costs and I don't think most judges would legitimately continue to hold the rule that if something is novel it's likely unconstitutional. Furthermore, even more restrictive laws have been passed by larger US cities and states and are not being challenged. It's an interesting case but no way definitive I think on the excise tax issue.

 

[Skel]

There is all sorts of reasons that the 90's assault weapon ban did not work very well, the main ones being that the bill was handicapped from the start with more the 650 models of firearms flat out exempted, and then any firearm manufactured before the ban took effect being grandfathered in, and weapon manufactures over produced so many of the banned weapons in the lead up to the bill coming into effect that we did not see a drop in availability or increase in price at all for the majority of the time the bill was in effect. We then repealed the bill just as new stock of the banned weapons were starting to run out.

Even then the studies are mixed about it's effect. While it did not drop overall gun violence much we did see a very noticeable drop in mass murders during the decade is was in effect, and when it lapsed we saw a fairly massive increase in gun violence just across the Mexican border that is attributed to firearms sold in America. I'm honestly not sure that those things are all that causally linked to the ban because as I said that ban was not in effect long enough to substantially change availability.



No they are not. We call it Registration as a shorthand, the full name is Vehicle Registration Tax on the official forms. I just finished paying mine, to the county tax assessor.

My understanding is you pay the tax in order to register your car with the state. I did a simple search on "What is Vehicle Registration?" and first thing was

1. Vehicle registration
   Vehicle registration is the compulsory registration of a vehicle with a government authority. Vehicle registration's purpose is to establish clear ownership and to tax motorists or vehicle owners. While almost all vehicles are uniquely identified by a vehicle identification number only registered vehicles display a vehicle registration plate and carry a vehicle registration certificate.

We're might be of splitting hairs here, but my point is registration is the logging of what with who.. the tax could be placed upon that, like we do with autos.. of course we can't because the Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 86 forbids us to have a DB of guns to owners. Not saying that's right, but it exists.

As for the study, you're kind of making my point. I struggle to see how a study of this kind could possibly factor in everything needed to make a definitive claim. I'm still not saying it's wrong, the logic makes sense to me.

Oh in case I was unclear, they were accounting for crime rate. So basically if two people lived in a place with an identical crime rate the one with the gun would be more likely to be the victim of homicide.



While I agree that the right to bear arms is in the constitution and the right to drive isn't, I was just saying that we do tax things all the time in that way. In the case of auto registration I'm really not clear on how it's different than a tax.

See above.. still not disagreeing as much as saying I wouldn't hold up a study as the grail of why we should do something.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Bonus points to you if you can tell us where you got that info about how so far China has paid the vast majority of the tariffs.

Think it was a Bloomberg article.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Although I disagree with your premise (getting rid of a right), conservatives have been doing it wrt to voting since basically forever.

You don't think something codified in the Bill of Rights is a right?

 

[fskimospy]

We could likewise just tax the shit out of abortion and lower its rate also. Doesn't mean you'd think that was a great idea but I guess when your principles are purely situational like yours it doesn't matter.

No, I just think that things that are bad for society should be taxed and things that are good for society shouldn't be (as a broad principle). Guns are bad for society, so tax them. Abortion is good for society so don't.

This isn't exactly rocket science here, big guy.

 

[fskimospy]

See above.. still not disagreeing as much as saying I wouldn't hold up a study as the grail of why we should do something.

Sure, I agree it's not the be-all and there are plenty of reasons why someone could conclude that even if it were the case that they wanted people to own guns anyway. Although to be clear it's not just one study, it's many.