A 1,000% TAX on semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns?

[Charlie T Waite]

[Eyesa Horg]

Added again

[sassnetguy50]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8051/text?r=1&s=1

[Eyesa Horg]

Amazing that it could even be legal. 

[Still hand Bill]

1 hour ago, Eyesa Horg said:

Amazing that it could even be legal. 

If it ever made it to the current Supreme Court it probably wouldn’t be legal.  Problem is it takes years for cases to get decided and the damage is done before the courts can weigh in.  

[sassnetguy50]

17 hours ago, Eyesa Horg said:

Amazing that it could even be legal. 

Possibly the people could challenge it as financial discrimination against the poor like they did against some of the melting point laws.

[Ozark Shark]

On 8/6/2022 at 6:10 AM, Eyesa Horg said:

Amazing that it could even be legal. 

While I pray and hope this never passes, it would not be a hard argument to show this is unconstitutional. With a rate of 1,000%, it is obvious that the intent is to financially deny the right of ownership. In 1966, Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections (a ruling outlawing poll taxes) established the precedent that the government, at any level, cannot use taxation of any amount to deny a right if a requirement of financial means is not constitutionally documented for that specific right. In that case, it was the right to vote and involved a lot less money. The wording of the ruling makes extending the argument to all constitutional rights pretty straightforward. 

 

The irony is that if this does become law, a SCOTUS ruling against it using the above argument could also eliminate the $200 tax contained in NFA 1934; something the writers of this 1,000% abomination would hate. And given the precedent, I would expect the opportunity for an accelerated hearing would be likely.

[Three Foot Johnson]

Democratic Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia is preparing to introduce a bill levying a 1000% excise tax on the sale of ANY semi-automatic firearm. The most widely produced and/or sold semi-auto of all time in the US is, arguably, the 1911. The cheapest I can currently find sells for $389, but if this were to somehow become law, it would jump to $389 + $3890 federal excise tax= $4279 + state sales tax on the original $389, so $4300 or more . A cheap AR15 would be ~$6000. A Ruger 10/22 would be around $3200. Even a crappy Hi Point C9/40/45 would jump to around $2000. A typical semi-auto shotgun for waterfowling or a leisurely round of sporting clays at the range on a Saturday afternoon would be $8000 to $10,000, minimum.

If Democrats were able to eliminate the filibuster, as they have threatened, and pass these idiotic bills with a simple majority vote, this could become law in a matter of days.

[Still hand Bill]

I think these bills are brought up knowing they won’t pass.   Makes they look like they are doing something without actual doing it. 
 

 Imho it would be interesting to see it pass, then until it’s overturned, police will have to pay a lot to replace arms.  It should be quickly overturned and as mentioned above could end the nfa.  Also would end the current excise tax costing a lot of $$.  Unintended consequences.  

[Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967]

The overriding problem is that the members of the "D" party do not represent their constituents.  Rather, they represent their bosses.  And, it could be (speculated? argued?) that the bosses in turn represent their sponsors.  And part of this Borg-type mindset is the understanding that no matter how absurd a bill is, if it's introduced by a "D" it will very likely be passed.

 

Nowhere has this been more evident than in california.  Occasionally, a "D" will be allowed to follow the wishes of their constituency if it is obvious the party has enough votes secured to achieve their goal.  However, if every "D" vote is necessary, they're going to get every vote.  There have been some pretty obvious examples here... like the fella from the Central Valley who voted his district's wishes instead of the boss's, and was summarily kicked out of his office (actual office, not position) and moved to a closet in a building across the road from the Capital.

 

Or the final holdout "D" who changed his vote to give the state bosses the absurdly higher gasoline tax they wanted.  The people of his district - who had been VERY clear what they wanted - were incensed, and started a recall drive.  Outcome?  His colleagues in the legislature changed the rules for the recall process.  He got his reward for following orders; the people of his district got bupkis.  Actually, they - along with the rest of the state - got screwed again.

 

And now it's SO obviously happening on the national stage.