WA State HB 1703 Tax on Firearms and Ammo introduced

[Oklahomie]

S**t, good luck finding ammo to tax.

 

[sneakboxer]

FYI we are all ready paying 10-11% tax via the Pittman–Robertson Act of 1937 on ammo and firearms. I believe that the tax is pulled at the factory. Some states also tax ammo like Tennessee at .10 a box. These taxes were established for conservation and actually work for the sportsmen funding ranges, habitat, ramps, and hunting areas. However, this new talk sounds like an additional control to me.

 

[GTeye]

State initiative 1185 passed in 2012 mandates a 2/3 vote in congress or a vote put to the people to raise taxes. Good luck with that.

They already nullified this....

 

[GTeye]

Actually if you read it, it's not that terrible.

Here is the actual bill: HB 1703

I have issues with paying additional fees and taxes on anything that is already covered by a sales tax...but that happens every time you fill up with gas, and ask someone who buys hard alcohol or a smoker how they feel. Smokers pay something like $3.50 a pack in additional taxes...before sales tax, so they pay more in sales tax.

And I don't really have an issue with tracking the retail sales of firearms. Doing so would provide accurate metrics and statistics for folks like me to use in the fight against the anti-gun people. Being able to illustrate with hard numbers the fact that our state has seen a significant increase in legal ownership while at the same time experienced a significant decrease in firearm crime; that's the type of info that invalidates the emotional/fear driven blather we are seeing right now.

I read it and it sounds terrible to me.

I don't understand how you can use one mistake to justify another?

I mean we are supposed to ask people who drink and smoke how they feel so they can tell us they feel miserable because of the taxes imposed on them and we are supposed to take away from that discussion that it's now okay and acceptable for us to also feel miserable over the imposed taxes on what we are doing?

How exactly does that make sense? Spreading misery equally is the job of the liberals... not those who believe in our inherent rights, espescially ones that say shall not be infringed.

Once you open the door to this you will see more and more and more and more taxes and people will be priced out of being able to start recreationally shooting because of the cost of ammo and then as the price rises people will be priced out of hunting and home protection and once their foot is in the door here they will move on to other legislation and use this as a justification for that.

Perhaps you are okay with paying the "masters" to do something in order to solve an issue that you aren't even causing... I am not.

You also said "that's the type of info that invalidates the emotional/fear driven blather we are seeing right now." , your last paragraph makes it sound like those seeking to take and regulate our ability to own firearms and purchase ammunition are driven by logic and facts... they are not... you can throw all the facts you want at these people and it means NOTHING.

This is why liberal politicians will stand up and leave when someone starts talking about this issue from the point of view that gun control is a negative thing... search youtube, you will find many examples. Logic, statistics and facts mean nothing to their agenda.

 

[John H]

State initiative 1185 passed in 2012 mandates a 2/3 vote in congress or a vote put to the people to raise taxes. Good luck with that.

Since when does a state initiative tell congress what to do??

 

[8ball]

This is what they want to use the tax revenue for - a Department of Health safety program.

(1) A firearm—related injury and death prevention education program
is created to be administered by the department as provided in this
section.
(2) The department must identify public education efforts currently
underway within state government and among local governments and
private groups to educate firearm owners and prevent firearm—related
injuries and death. The department must convene stakeholders and
partners, conduct research, obtain data, identify needs, gaps,
opportunities, and strategies, and develop a plan for:

(a) Expanding and enhancing existing firearm safety education
programs for firearm owners, prospective firearm owners, and those who
live and work where firearms are present, with particular emphasis on
those programs that research shows have proven effective;

(b) Implementing additional firearm safety educational programs
throughout the state for firearm owners, prospective firearm owners,
and those who live and work where firearms are present, with particular
emphasis on those programs that research shows have proven effective;

(c) Promoting the safe storage and handling of all firearms and
minimization of risk of firearm—related injuries and death; and

(d) Evaluating the effectiveness and success of the program as a
whole, as well as its component parts.

 

[GTeye]

This is what they want to use the tax revenue for - a Department of Health safety program.

Sound like they hired a person who knows how to write politically correct babble to me.

If they were going to do this, why does government need to be involved this much? Why not push a mandatory safety class to obtain a certificate to be used at the time of gun purchase, and let the private sector offer the classes which at least would create jobs through a supply and demand system.

I'm not really in favor of that either personally, I think EVERYONE who owns a gun should take safety classes, and re-take them over time to drill it into their heads but I don't think the government should be forcing me or anyone else to.

Is there a knife tax? To support proper use of knives? Lawnmower tax? To support safe handling of lawnmowers? I mean this same logic can be applied to virtually any activity.. how about mountain climbing? Every time someone is stranded or lost up there it utilizes resources and there are deaths... When does it end?

They can "say" whatever they want but in the end their motives are not what they say in writing or in speeches.. their motives are to take away your rights.

 

[Botte Hork]

And I don't really have an issue with tracking the retail sales of firearms. Doing so would provide accurate metrics and statistics for folks like me to use in the fight against the anti-gun people.

Having access to everybody's browsing history might help in the fight against child abuse. Having active and detailed tracking of people's finances might help indicate problems coming up early (marital, substance/alcohol abuse, etc) so such issues can be fought. But do you and I want to give up all privacy? I don't, but of course we can agree to disagree.

 

[TCOV]

Actually if you read it, it's not that terrible.

Here is the actual bill: HB 1703

I have issues with paying additional fees and taxes on anything that is already covered by a sales tax...but that happens every time you fill up with gas, and ask someone who buys hard alcohol or a smoker how they feel. Smokers pay something like $3.50 a pack in additional taxes...before sales tax, so they pay more in sales tax.

And I don't really have an issue with tracking the retail sales of firearms. Doing so would provide accurate metrics and statistics for folks like me to use in the fight against the anti-gun people. Being able to illustrate with hard numbers the fact that our state has seen a significant increase in legal ownership while at the same time experienced a significant decrease in firearm crime; that's the type of info that invalidates the emotional/fear driven blather we are seeing right now.

WHAT ARE YOU THINKING? JEEZ!

 

[kumabear17]

This was posted before, but if you didn't get it then here is the Washington State Legislature's pilot project to solicit feedback on their (stupid) bills:
Washington State Legislature

I noticed they seem to have put a check on it which limits you to one comment per bill - or maybe I just made so many on HB 1588 I was blocked. Who knows....
On rhe left center of the page you wull see a "NEW" label in yellow. Just below is a button "Comment on the Bill" in grey. Your first time they ask for your name and e-mail - and yes I see they have now limited it to one posting per user.

 

[RoneKiln]

In principle, I don't have an issue with ammo and firearms being taxed to support programs and facilities that support safe firearm activities. In practice, I have too often seen the government raid one account to support another. I don't trust the tax money would go towards beneficial pro firearms programs. I also think this would end up turning into a sort of "sin tax" and I don't like the idea of exercising our 2A rights as being viewed as some form of "sin." Imagine that tax money being directed at anti 2A publicity campaigns under the guise of a "safety program."

 

[mancat]

^ in, principle, government won't use your tax dollars for anything that doesn't benefit you or the general public. almost never turns out that way, though. why do you think we're in such dire financial straits? it's not because the republicans don't ask for enough taxes, or that democrats ask for too much - well it's a little bit of both, but by and large it's because the government wastes just about every cent on the dollar that they take from us. I have no intention of giving them even more on my ammo purchases.

 

[Cuthbert Allgood]

OK, so taxing ammo and/or firearm purchases above and beyond normal sales tax? Hmm. OK. So where does that tax go? Does it go to a firearm education program which will be free for everyone to partake in? How about local municipal gun ranges?

Or what about going towards providing PTSD therapy for our soldiers coming home?

As a whole, I'm not opposed to a sales tax but I want it very clearly spelled out. I want a state wide vote required to put into place and to change it. And I want to know exactly where every dollar goes to.

As for collecting from person to person sales, no. Sorry. Piss off.

it'll probably go toward more social programs for illegal alien invaders.

 

[Grunwald]

State initiative 1185 passed in 2012 mandates a 2/3 vote in congress or a vote put to the people to raise taxes. Good luck with that.

Sorry to be the messenger and deliver the bad news but the WA supreme court just ruled on that and declared unconstitutional. The democrats are free to jack up any tax they want with a simple majority