Author Topic: Chicago, IL Violence/Ammo Tax (Read 3962 times)

Ben · « **on:** October 10, 2012, 10:22:17 AM »

I hate that they're giving CA ideas. As most things there, it appears to be Chicago driven and centric.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/10/illinois-county-considers-violence-tax-on-guns-and-ammo/?test=latestnews

MechAg94 · « **Reply #1 on:** October 10, 2012, 12:26:43 PM »

How about a violence tax on criminals who commit violence?

Tallpine · « **Reply #2 on:** October 10, 2012, 12:29:07 PM »

Quote from: MechAg94 on October 10, 2012, 12:26:43 PM

How about a violence tax on criminals who commit violence?

A tax on the police...?

(do you have a newsletter?)

RevDisk · « **Reply #3 on:** October 10, 2012, 01:03:12 PM »

It'd be legal if it wasn't a tax fully intended to prohibit firearms or ammo. So, a tax between one percent and say two hundred percent would probably be legal. A several thousand percent tax would not be.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #4 on:** October 10, 2012, 01:43:09 PM »

That's funny. I thought the entire cost of carry guns, home defense weapons, ammo, etc was already a violence tax.

Why not go after the people who don't do anything to prepare for violence?

griz · « **Reply #5 on:** October 10, 2012, 02:05:28 PM »

From the article:

Quote

Summers said gun violence costs the government in a number of ways, including the $143 a day it costs to keep someone in jail. Further, he said it costs $52,00 on average to treat a gunshot victim without insurance in the taxpayer-backed local hospital.

It's kind of stunning the crap you can come up with if you start from the assumption that a legal possession is "bad" and law abiding citizens who own one should be punished. You could draw the same parallel with other legal items, such as automobiles or prescription drugs, but then some of the people who voted for you might start to doubt your motives. Trying to tax something out of existence is an old idea, but politicians keep thinking they invented something new.

Scout26 · « **Reply #6 on:** October 10, 2012, 02:13:22 PM »

Given what has been coming out of the 7th Circuit, (esp Ezell) there's a pretty good chance this will be struck down by the courts, if passed.

longeyes · « **Reply #7 on:** October 10, 2012, 02:46:35 PM »

And to think that some believe that government is itself a form of organized, (mostly) sublimated violence...

Blakenzy · « **Reply #8 on:** October 10, 2012, 03:19:36 PM »

Government does pretend to hold a monopoly on violence. Don't pay your violence taxes and they will use violence on you.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #9 on:** October 10, 2012, 05:31:31 PM »

Quote from: griz on October 10, 2012, 02:05:28 PM

From the article:

It's kind of stunning the crap you can come up with if you start from the assumption that a legal possession is "bad" and law abiding citizens who own one should be punished. You could draw the same parallel with other legal items, such as automobiles or prescription drugs, but then some of the people who voted for you might start to doubt your motives. Trying to tax something out of existence is an old idea, but politicians keep thinking they invented something new.

Don't you also need to believe the fantasy that elminating legal guns will eliminate illegal guns?

MechAg94 · « **Reply #10 on:** October 10, 2012, 05:32:18 PM »

Quote from: Blakenzy on October 10, 2012, 03:19:36 PM

Government does pretend to hold a monopoly on violence. Don't pay your violence taxes and they will use violence on you.

Now that is a better way of looking at it.

freakazoid · « **Reply #11 on:** October 11, 2012, 07:01:56 AM »

Quote from: Blakenzy on October 10, 2012, 03:19:36 PM

Government does pretend to hold a monopoly on violence. Don't pay your violence taxes and they will use violence on you.

I believe we call that the protection racket.

longeyes · « **Reply #12 on:** October 11, 2012, 11:34:42 AM »

It always come down, in the end, to men with guns. The Founders understood that. Too many of us now don't.

longeyes · « **Reply #13 on:** October 11, 2012, 11:36:33 AM »

Anything but finger the real source, the real culprits.

They need a gangbanger tax. And they need to look unblinkingly at the ghetto subculture.

I'm not holding my breath.

Until law-abiding citizens get mad as hell and won't take it any more, it's not going to change.

roo_ster · « **Reply #14 on:** October 11, 2012, 12:39:15 PM »

Quote from: freakazoid on October 11, 2012, 07:01:56 AM

I believe we call that the protection racket.

Rival criminal gangs, one of them with an edge over the others....can we all say, "anarcho-tyranny?"

slingshot · « **Reply #15 on:** October 18, 2012, 02:41:17 PM »

Just saw this and wanted to post just in case it goes un-noticed.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/18/county-official-proposes-bullet-tax-to-curb-chicago-crime/?cmpid=prn_aol&icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-sb-bb%7Cdl2%7Csec3_lnk3%26pLid%3D222030

Not exactly a new idea, but one I have been expecting for a long time.

longeyes · « **Reply #16 on:** October 18, 2012, 02:52:43 PM »

When do they impose a tatt tax?

seeker_two · « **Reply #17 on:** October 18, 2012, 03:44:06 PM »

This tax is really going to cut into the dealers' profits....the drug dealers, that is....

MechAg94 · « **Reply #18 on:** October 18, 2012, 06:18:04 PM »

Yeah, this will take gun or bullets out of the hands of criminals I am sure.

Scout26 · « **Reply #19 on:** October 18, 2012, 06:40:55 PM »

Merging Duplicate Topics.

slingshot · « **Reply #20 on:** October 18, 2012, 07:56:38 PM »

If approved and I suspect it will be in Chicago, $0.05/cartridge for 22 shells might just get a bit expensive.

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #21 on:** October 18, 2012, 08:46:52 PM »

Unintended consequences means people will purchase ammo out of the taxed jurisdiction. Or online. Only businesses will suffer.

slingshot · « **Reply #22 on:** October 18, 2012, 10:25:43 PM »

Overall, people will buy their ammunition outside of the county. Yes, the local businesses that sell firearms, ammunition, and related items will be hurt. Folks will simply shop elsewhere. Control crime? I doubt it.

Regolith · « **Reply #23 on:** October 18, 2012, 10:42:49 PM »

Quote from: RevDisk on October 10, 2012, 01:03:12 PM

It'd be legal if it wasn't a tax fully intended to prohibit firearms or ammo. So, a tax between one percent and say two hundred percent would probably be legal. A several thousand percent tax would not be.

Not necessarily; see Minneapolis Star Tribune Company v. Commissioner, where a special tax on ink and newspaper was held to violate the first amendment.

If the 2nd is treated like the 1st, as it should be, then any special tax targeting only ammunition and/or firearms would be considered a violation of the 2nd amendment.

brimic · « **Reply #24 on:** October 18, 2012, 10:49:49 PM »

Quote

If the 2nd is treated like the 1st, as it should be, then any special tax targeting only ammunition and/or firearms would be considered a violation of the 2nd amendment.

Pittman-Robertson.

Quote

Unintended consequences means people will purchase ammo out of the taxed jurisdiction. Or online.

Or via black market.

News:

Author Topic: Chicago, IL Violence/Ammo Tax (Read 3962 times)