Sales tax on private sales of firearms?

[Doc In UPlace]

According to the Washington Arms Collector's publication, Gun News, Idaho and then Oregon are coming next in the state-by-state death by 50 cuts strategy, using outside money to influence (buy) local elections.

This stems, in part, from the other chip-at-a-time erosion of democracy: campaign laws which allow more and more money to be poured in from undisclosed sources and corporate coffers, even from foreign sources.

The side tragedy there is that the flood of campaign money is sold to us as being "expressions of free speech," along with the insane idea that "corporations are people" and "speech is money". Therefore corporations qualify for first amendment protections to use their unlimited "speech" (money) to buy our government.

I remind my colleagues that Mussolini said, "Corporatism is the cornerstone of fascism". To which I say, he got that one right.

I also am shocked at how little and how late NRA responded here in Washington to help us oppose 594. They seemed to be soundly asleep at the switch and woke up way behind the power curve. Hopefully Idaho and Oregon will receive the support that we did not.

 

[AustenW]

That's really unfortunate. Glad I'm not in washington. Try to deter fire arm purchases with whatever they can. Now is the time to stand tall and hold our ground! 594 is the universal background check measure correct? Including for private sales?

 

[Stomper]

Free speech is free speech. It matters not in what venue they choose to speak.

Well, then it looks is like a Plutocracy is on the horizon for us...

 

[Belial]

From the voters guide (if you consider that reliable):
https://wei.sos.wa.gov/agency/osos/...neral-Election/Pages/Online-Voters-Guide.aspx
(Click on "Initiative Measure No. 594" and then "Explanatory Statement", last paragraph).

"Sales tax would not apply to the sale or transfer of firearms between people who are not licensed firearms dealers, so long as they comply with all background check requirements. Using a licensed firearms dealer to assist with such sales or transfers would not result in sales or use tax."

Where does the law show provisions for dealers to protect themselves from this statement?? The dealer is "the" responsible party to the department of revenue. It wouldn't matter to department of revenue if the parties involved in the gun transfer exchanged taxes or not. They can come after the dealer like they have in the past. Every other transfer has been taxable interstate and intrastate.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Because I am afraid there is little that can be done. The masses are okay with BG checks and do not consider them infringements. They are also such scared sheep that they are not stopping to evaluate whether or not this new law will actually do any good...

Seattle voters are more like Frankenstein's monster "FIREarm BAD, Background check GOOD" not bothering to read all 18 pages. Maybe you can do a bit on that.

 

[AustenW]

Seattle voters are more like Frankenstein's monster "FIREarm BAD, Background check GOOD" not bothering to read all 18 pages. Maybe you can do a bit on that.[/QUOTE]

Good point. I wonder how many of the gun nut liberals have actually sat down and read the whole measure. Including the fine print!

 

[IronMonster]

According to the Washington Arms Collector's publication, Gun News, Idaho and then Oregon are coming next in the state-by-state death by 50 cuts strategy, using outside money to influence (buy) local elections.

This stems, in part, from the other chip-at-a-time erosion of democracy: campaign laws which allow more and more money to be poured in from undisclosed sources and corporate coffers, even from foreign sources.

The side tragedy there is that the flood of campaign money is sold to us as being "expressions of free speech," along with the insane idea that "corporations are people" and "speech is money". Therefore corporations qualify for first amendment protections to use their unlimited "speech" (money) to buy our government.

I remind my colleagues that Mussolini said, "Corporatism is the cornerstone of fascism". To which I say, he got that one right.

I also am shocked at how little and how late NRA responded here in Washington to help us oppose 594. They seemed to be soundly asleep at the switch and woke up way behind the power curve. Hopefully Idaho and Oregon will receive the support that we did not.

Idaho? I would like to see Bloomberg and his elite minions spend millions on gun control in Idaho, Simply because there is zero chance of it happening. Idaho is an extremely firearms friendly state that has not elected a democrat to a state office in something like 10 years. It is rated the 7th most conservative state in the union.


http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/apr/15/gun-laws-make-idaho-a-haven-for-firearms/

 

[IronMonster]

"The Idaho Constitution says, "No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony."

 

[Stomper]

Well, the Oregon Constitution had a "defense of marriage" amendment in it, and look how that went. Right or wrong (not the issue), it was struck down by a judge in Eugene.

 

[IronMonster]

Mmmm.... Yeah, Oregon. 3rd most liberal state in the nation.

 

[BoatRanch]

My FFL said he talked to his lawyer about this very issue, and he was told that the natural process for thes Liberal Washington State Legislators would be to follow up the passing of the law with a fine tune up this with a requirement to collect a use tax on each and every transaction. His lawyer said, "It's what they do..."
All out of state transfers of guns are already required to collect at least a use tax eve if it is a gift.

 

[sigboi]

Man, so we have to pay at least $30 for a BG check fee every time we want to borrow or lend a gun? Is it going to get so ridiculous that the guy behind the firearm counter can't hand me a gun to see if it fits my hand then? And then ask me to do a BG check to hold it? This is really going to suck if you want to follow all the rules...

 

[xtratoy]

Just a quick question for those that may have had more time to familiarize themselves with the new legislation. Since it appears I-594 is going to pass and I-591 is going to fail, will FFL's be required to collect sales tax on every private gun purchase? Even if it has already had the taxes paid in the state of Washington when it was bought originally?

Here is what I received as an answer to that question earlier. http://www.northwestfirearms.com/threads/tax-question-on-594.181366/

 

[BlindedByScience]

I'm afraid you're right, xtratoy. I've talked to two FFL's about this, and they say the same thing - they believe that if you've got a receipt showing WA taxes were paid, you get a credit for the amount of tax paid. However, the 'fine print' is that the firearm value is to be determined by the dealer based on 'current market value'. So, if I decided to sell my 30 year old Ruger Redhawk that I bought new for about four hundred dollars (fat chance there), will it be taxed at what I paid for it? Likely not.

I'm afraid that folks that think these transfers will go untaxed are kidding themselves.

 

[Belial]

I'm afraid you're right, xtratoy. I've talked to two FFL's about this, and they say the same thing - they believe that if you've got a receipt showing WA taxes were paid, you get a credit for the amount of tax paid. However, the 'fine print' is that the firearm value is to be determined by the dealer based on 'current market value'. So, if I decided to sell my 30 year old Ruger Redhawk that I bought new for about four hundred dollars (fat chance there), will it be taxed at what I paid for it? Likely not.

I'm afraid that folks that think these transfers will go untaxed are kidding themselves.

I totally agree unfortunately....Until there is a protection written in to protect dealers they will have to protect themselves.

Tax has already been paid from DOR WA state website

In cases where the firearm owner can provide proof of sales or use tax paid to Washington, the Washington dealer is not required to collect use tax. The Washington dealer must keep proof of tax paid. In cases where the firearm owner can provide proof of sales or use tax paid to other states, the firearm owner is eligible for a credit against the use tax for the amount of sales or use tax paid to the other state (RCW 82.12.035).

Do you guys keep all your receipts?? How about anything you have ever bough used??

 

[donaldc]

Man, so we have to pay at least $30 for a BG check fee every time we want to borrow or lend a gun? Is it going to get so ridiculous that the guy behind the firearm counter can't hand me a gun to see if it fits my hand then? And then ask me to do a BG check to hold it? This is really going to suck if you want to follow all the rules...

I'm wondering about this as well. It says online that the use tax applies to items purchased. Will you still have to pay the use tax if you loan your hunting buddy a shotgun for the weekend? How will the dealer or the state determine if the transfer is a loan or a purchase? It would be absolutely ridiculous to have to pay the use tax and background check fees just to loan your gun to someone and to get it back - but it wouldn't surprise me in this state.

 

[BlindedByScience]

It's a real question. Now and then I get asked to introduce someone to firearms and shooting in general. Does this mean I can no longer take them to the range, and hand them one of my firearms to shoot unless we transfer the weapon to them? Even if I'm standing there, supervising every trigger pull? I realize there's an accommodation for "safety training" but this could be interpreted two ways.

No way around it, this just sucks......