New Gun Regulation

[Ridley]

You should be very worried when a governmental body wants to impose a tax / fee on exercising a constitutional right. The precedence this would set would spread like wildfire across the nation.

While the San Jose law is stupid on so many levels, the government already imposes a tax on exercising your right to bear arms…look up the 1937 Pittman Robertson Act. So the precedent is already there. Hopefully the courts will realize just how egregious this law and required insurance is.

 

[whaack]

I don't really have a problem with the $25 as long as it goes to the causes mentioned, but insurance is just so pointless.

I’m not trying to be harsh, but WTF? I hope they get sued to the dark ages.

All guns restrictions are a violation of the 2A. Period.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[packer58]

Thanks for pointing this out, I had no idea. It looks to me like the manufacturers pay the tax / fees not the consumer according to this. The information below is all iv'e looked at so far.




The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, popularly known as the Pittman–Robertson Act, was approved by Congress in 1937.

• The act provides funding for the selection, restoration, and improvement of wildlife habitat and for wildlife management research. The act was amended in 1970 to include funding for hunter education programs and for the development and operation of public target ranges.
• Funds for the act come from an 11% federal excise tax on sporting arms, ammunition, and archery equipment, as well as a 10% tax on handguns. One-half of the excise tax on handguns and archery equipment is used for hunter education and target ranges. These funds are collected from the manufacturers and are distributed each year to the states and territorial areas by the Department of the Interior.
• Each state’s proportion of the federal funds is based on the area of the state and the number of licensed hunters in the state. The state covers the full amount of an approved project and then applies for reimbursement through federal aid for up to 75% of the project’s expenses; the state is responsible for the other 25% of the project’s cost.
• Non-hunting nature lovers equally benefit from this funding since it supports the management of wildlife areas and wetlands as well as game and non-game wildlife.
• “Robertson’s 29 words” are a clause in the act’s language to prevent states from diverting license fees paid by hunters away from their intended purpose: “… And which shall include a prohibition against the diversion of license fees paid by hunters for any other purpose than the administration of said State fish and game department….”

 

[eldeuce]

Thanks for pointing this out, I had no idea. It looks to me like the manufacturers pay the tax / fees not the consumer according to this. The information below is all iv'e looked at so far.




The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, popularly known as the Pittman–Robertson Act, was approved by Congress in 1937.

• The act provides funding for the selection, restoration, and improvement of wildlife habitat and for wildlife management research. The act was amended in 1970 to include funding for hunter education programs and for the development and operation of public target ranges.
• Funds for the act come from an 11% federal excise tax on sporting arms, ammunition, and archery equipment, as well as a 10% tax on handguns. One-half of the excise tax on handguns and archery equipment is used for hunter education and target ranges. These funds are collected from the manufacturers and are distributed each year to the states and territorial areas by the Department of the Interior.
• Each state’s proportion of the federal funds is based on the area of the state and the number of licensed hunters in the state. The state covers the full amount of an approved project and then applies for reimbursement through federal aid for up to 75% of the project’s expenses; the state is responsible for the other 25% of the project’s cost.
• Non-hunting nature lovers equally benefit from this funding since it supports the management of wildlife areas and wetlands as well as game and non-game wildlife.
• “Robertson’s 29 words” are a clause in the act’s language to prevent states from diverting license fees paid by hunters away from their intended purpose: “… And which shall include a prohibition against the diversion of license fees paid by hunters for any other purpose than the administration of said State fish and game department….”

Manufacturers and importers pay it after collecting it from us in the form of increased consumer costs. We support wildlife and conservation, every time.

 

[def90]

I don't really have a problem with the $25 as long as it goes to the causes mentioned, but insurance is just so pointless.

And this is why we are always on the defensive..

 

[def90]

Thanks for pointing this out, I had no idea. It looks to me like the manufacturers pay the tax / fees not the consumer according to this. The information below is all iv'e looked at so far.




The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, popularly known as the Pittman–Robertson Act, was approved by Congress in 1937.

• The act provides funding for the selection, restoration, and improvement of wildlife habitat and for wildlife management research. The act was amended in 1970 to include funding for hunter education programs and for the development and operation of public target ranges.
• Funds for the act come from an 11% federal excise tax on sporting arms, ammunition, and archery equipment, as well as a 10% tax on handguns. One-half of the excise tax on handguns and archery equipment is used for hunter education and target ranges. These funds are collected from the manufacturers and are distributed each year to the states and territorial areas by the Department of the Interior.
• Each state’s proportion of the federal funds is based on the area of the state and the number of licensed hunters in the state. The state covers the full amount of an approved project and then applies for reimbursement through federal aid for up to 75% of the project’s expenses; the state is responsible for the other 25% of the project’s cost.
• Non-hunting nature lovers equally benefit from this funding since it supports the management of wildlife areas and wetlands as well as game and non-game wildlife.
• “Robertson’s 29 words” are a clause in the act’s language to prevent states from diverting license fees paid by hunters away from their intended purpose: “… And which shall include a prohibition against the diversion of license fees paid by hunters for any other purpose than the administration of said State fish and game department….”

Ummm, the tax they have to pay is figured in to the price of the firearm.

 

[Ridley]

Packer58. In address to firearm purchases, you also pay that tax when you purchase ammunition, and archery equipment. And as pointed out, the manufacturer pays it, but that additional cost is rolled into the overall cost of the equipment. There is also a tax on fishing equipment, the Dingall Johnson Act.

 

[packer58]

Packer58. In address to firearm purchases, you also pay that tax when you purchase ammunition, and archery equipment. And as pointed out, the manufacturer pays it, but that additional cost is rolled into the overall cost of the equipment. There is also a tax on fishing equipment, the Dingall Johnson Act.

I hear you loud and clear, may be splitting hairs a bit but I just don't see where precedence has been set going after firearm owners directly with with these fees/taxes.
Never the less, I hope the ordnance is overturned and found to be unconstitutional.