HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why The Gun Lobby Is Terr...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:10 PM

Why The Gun Lobby Is Terrified Of California - from Mother Jones - *5-cent tax on each bullet*

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/02/why-gun-lobby-terrified-california

"As it is with many issues, California is out front on firearms regulations," said Mark Hedlund, a spokesman for California Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg. "We don't represent the NRA. We don't think that the NRA represents the majority of Californians, by a long shot."

California's newly proposed gun laws would:

-Ban the possession of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds
-Prevent the future sale, purchase, manufacture, importation, or transfer of any firearms that can accept detachable magazines
-Close the "bullet button" loophole by banning tools that allow the quick changing of gun magazines
-Regulate ammunition sales like the state regulates gun sales. Ammunition dealers would need to be licensed and anyone buying from them would need to obtain a permit and complete a background check.
-Create a 5-cent tax on each bullet purchased, for the purpose of funding crime prevention
-Prevent felons and other adults barred from gun ownership from living in a house that contains any guns
-Prohibit the loaning or sale of a firearm between people who know each other personally
-Take steps to phase out legal possession of assault weapons that were purchased before California outlawed their sale
-Require all firearms owners to take an hours-long gun safety course every year, similar to what the state now requires for obtaining a concealed weapon permit
-Require gun owners to purchase insurance to cover damage they may inflict
-Require CalPERS and CalSTRS, two of the nation's largest pension funds, to divest from companies that make, sell, or market firearms or ammunition

(those are all worth bolding so i didn't bother...)

near end-
If enacted, the new laws might do for guns what the California's pollution and fuel economy rules did for the nation's automobiles. In 2011 alone, Californians bought 600,000 firearms; only Texas sports more registered weapons. "The gun industry has a love/hate relationship with California," Hedlund says. "They hate our gun regulations because they are among the toughest in the country, but they love our marketplace."

244 replies, 12363 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 244 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why The Gun Lobby Is Terrified Of California - from Mother Jones - *5-cent tax on each bullet* (Original post)
farminator3000 Feb 2013 OP
Light House Feb 2013 #1
Drale Feb 2013 #5
Light House Feb 2013 #7
kelliekat44 Feb 2013 #75
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #8
Light House Feb 2013 #14
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #28
Light House Feb 2013 #32
MH1 Feb 2013 #18
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #25
MH1 Feb 2013 #29
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #42
former9thward Feb 2013 #60
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #66
former9thward Feb 2013 #71
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #73
hack89 Feb 2013 #81
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #97
hack89 Feb 2013 #102
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #104
hack89 Feb 2013 #106
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #109
hack89 Feb 2013 #113
AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #91
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #95
JDPriestly Feb 2013 #79
hack89 Feb 2013 #84
JDPriestly Feb 2013 #129
hack89 Feb 2013 #134
former9thward Feb 2013 #89
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #100
AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #142
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #146
AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #151
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #157
AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #158
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #161
X_Digger Feb 2013 #165
theKed Feb 2013 #167
former9thward Feb 2013 #169
theKed Feb 2013 #172
former9thward Feb 2013 #213
theKed Feb 2013 #215
AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #170
theKed Feb 2013 #173
jmowreader Feb 2013 #223
former9thward Feb 2013 #224
jmowreader Feb 2013 #231
former9thward Feb 2013 #233
jmowreader Feb 2013 #241
former9thward Feb 2013 #243
jmowreader Feb 2013 #244
JDPriestly Feb 2013 #77
Mojorabbit Feb 2013 #56
Light House Feb 2013 #58
slackmaster Feb 2013 #111
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #192
slackmaster Feb 2013 #199
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #200
Hoyt Feb 2013 #152
flamingdem Feb 2013 #2
Light House Feb 2013 #3
graham4anything Feb 2013 #6
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #11
Light House Feb 2013 #17
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #20
Light House Feb 2013 #23
CTyankee Feb 2013 #33
Light House Feb 2013 #38
CTyankee Feb 2013 #39
Light House Feb 2013 #40
CTyankee Feb 2013 #70
Light House Feb 2013 #228
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #35
Light House Feb 2013 #37
Light House Feb 2013 #12
graham4anything Feb 2013 #15
Light House Feb 2013 #19
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #22
Light House Feb 2013 #26
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #41
Light House Feb 2013 #43
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #44
Light House Feb 2013 #47
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #52
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #178
graham4anything Feb 2013 #185
derby378 Feb 2013 #4
Drale Feb 2013 #10
davidn3600 Feb 2013 #76
Drale Feb 2013 #78
davidn3600 Feb 2013 #82
Bay Boy Feb 2013 #21
derby378 Feb 2013 #36
Downtown Hound Feb 2013 #67
derby378 Feb 2013 #80
Downtown Hound Feb 2013 #136
Bay Boy Feb 2013 #117
Downtown Hound Feb 2013 #138
MH1 Feb 2013 #34
Downtown Hound Feb 2013 #65
Hoyt Feb 2013 #154
Bay Boy Feb 2013 #9
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #16
Light House Feb 2013 #27
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #45
Light House Feb 2013 #48
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #51
Light House Feb 2013 #55
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #62
Bay Boy Feb 2013 #13
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #24
Bay Boy Feb 2013 #31
libtodeath Feb 2013 #46
hack89 Feb 2013 #87
graham4anything Feb 2013 #99
hack89 Feb 2013 #107
graham4anything Feb 2013 #118
hack89 Feb 2013 #121
graham4anything Feb 2013 #125
hack89 Feb 2013 #127
graham4anything Feb 2013 #131
hack89 Feb 2013 #135
graham4anything Feb 2013 #137
hack89 Feb 2013 #141
libtodeath Feb 2013 #101
hack89 Feb 2013 #108
libtodeath Feb 2013 #116
hack89 Feb 2013 #120
libtodeath Feb 2013 #124
hack89 Feb 2013 #126
Hugabear Feb 2013 #147
hack89 Feb 2013 #207
DainBramaged Feb 2013 #49
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2013 #85
DainBramaged Feb 2013 #90
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2013 #103
DainBramaged Feb 2013 #105
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #50
Light House Feb 2013 #57
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #61
Light House Feb 2013 #64
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #68
bluedigger Feb 2013 #69
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #72
bluedigger Feb 2013 #74
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #83
hack89 Feb 2013 #88
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #94
hack89 Feb 2013 #96
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #98
hack89 Feb 2013 #110
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #114
hack89 Feb 2013 #115
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #119
hack89 Feb 2013 #122
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #128
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #214
Sirveri Feb 2013 #204
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #216
guardian Feb 2013 #30
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #54
Scuba Feb 2013 #63
Recursion Feb 2013 #53
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #59
supercats Feb 2013 #86
samsingh Feb 2013 #92
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #93
slackmaster Feb 2013 #112
dmallind Feb 2013 #139
ButterflyBlood Feb 2013 #123
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #132
dmallind Feb 2013 #143
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #191
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #206
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #218
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #220
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #222
Scott.K Feb 2013 #130
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #133
Scott.K Feb 2013 #140
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #144
Scott.K Feb 2013 #145
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #148
Hoyt Feb 2013 #160
Hugabear Feb 2013 #149
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #153
oneshooter Feb 2013 #175
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #179
oneshooter Feb 2013 #227
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #229
Hoyt Feb 2013 #155
apocalypsehow Feb 2013 #176
jmowreader Feb 2013 #150
Hoyt Feb 2013 #156
Travis_0004 Feb 2013 #159
jmowreader Feb 2013 #163
Travis_0004 Feb 2013 #164
Crepuscular Feb 2013 #171
slackmaster Feb 2013 #168
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #177
slackmaster Feb 2013 #198
Coyote_Tan Feb 2013 #162
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #181
Crepuscular Feb 2013 #166
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #182
Crepuscular Feb 2013 #188
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #190
Crepuscular Feb 2013 #194
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #196
Crepuscular Feb 2013 #202
apocalypsehow Feb 2013 #174
derby378 Feb 2013 #180
apocalypsehow Feb 2013 #183
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #184
apocalypsehow Feb 2013 #186
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #189
apocalypsehow Feb 2013 #193
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #187
Crepuscular Feb 2013 #201
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #203
Crepuscular Feb 2013 #209
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #219
Crepuscular Feb 2013 #225
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #226
Crepuscular Feb 2013 #230
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #232
Crepuscular Feb 2013 #234
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #235
Crepuscular Feb 2013 #236
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #237
Crepuscular Feb 2013 #239
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #238
Crepuscular Feb 2013 #240
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #221
ShadowLiberal Feb 2013 #195
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #197
Sirveri Feb 2013 #205
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #217
xoom Feb 2013 #208
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #210
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #211
robinlynne Feb 2013 #212
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #242

Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:15 PM

1. While all good measures,

 

the bullet tax is unworkable in my mind, because CA residents would just go across state lines, like NV, OR, AZ, and buy all the tax free ammo they want.

And, I don't think it would survive a court challenge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:22 PM

5. Maybe people living on the border

but the gas cost would stop most of the population from doing that. That argument is used by people here in Cook County, Illinois about cigarette taxes, "People will just go to Indiana" and some people do but enough people buy in Cook County that it doesn't make a difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drale (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:26 PM

7. That makes sense.

 

I didn't think about that, but if someone is going to buy ammo in the border states, they would buy a shitload to make it worth their while in gas.

To my knowledge, and I may be wrong, but CA isn't proposing a limit of how much ammo can be possessed, so it might be worth it to avoid the tax to buy in bulk from another state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drale (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 02:28 PM

75. 3-cent Fed tax on all bullets. Deficit solved! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:28 PM

8. why spend $50 in gas to save $50 on ammo? the idea might be to FORCE a court challenge...

Gene Hoffman of Redwood City, co-founder and chairman of the Calguns Foundation gun rights group, countered that "almost every item in the proposal is wildly unconstitutional." He said the only silver lining is that passing such laws might "accelerate the speed at which the Supreme Court takes these ideas off the table."
(my note: or NOT!)
Steinberg unveiled the package in a news conference Thursday at the state Capitol, flanked by Public Safety Committee Chairwoman Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley; Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa; San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee; and police chiefs Chris Magnus of Richmond, Ken James of Emeryville and Sylvia Moir of El Cerrito.

A bill by Steinberg would ban future sale, purchase, making, importing or transfer in California of any semi-automatic rifle that takes a detachable magazine, by adding such guns to the state's list of banned assault weapons. Another Steinberg bill would require ownership records for all guns; California now keeps only handgun and assault weapon records.

Hancock's bill would ban possession -- not just manufacture and sale -- of large-capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

State Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, has reintroduced a bill to ban "bullet button" kits that let gun owners effectively sidestep the distinction between detachable and fixed magazines for semi-automatic rifles. Another Yee bill would require that guns be properly locked and stored when their owners aren't present, but that bill wasn't included on Steinberg's list Thursday.

http://www.dailybulletin.com/breakingnews/ci_22544460/californias-state-senate-democrats-roll-out-big-gun

i guess they can just throw another 'no importing bullets' one in there somehow?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #8)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:33 PM

14. You could be right about forcing a court challenge.

 

If someone were to spend the money to drive to one of the border states to buy ammo and avoid the tax, then they would buy in bulk to make it worth it their while.
AFAIK, CA isn't proposing a limit on how much ammo you can possess, just a tax on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #14)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:53 PM

28. i'm sure they've thought of the out of state thing

or doesn't CA already have a law against bring in ammo? they must for guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #28)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:55 PM

32. No, there is no law against bringing ammo into the state.

 

It would be very difficult to enforce such a law, the border states won't enforce CA laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #8)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:39 PM

18. A tax would not be unconstitutional, though, right?

I can see how it might be arguable for some of the other provisions, but I don't see how a relatively small tax would be unconstitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #18)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:49 PM

25. i guess you don't smoke cigs!

what are they like $15 a pack in CA?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #25)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:54 PM

29. True , but that kind of proves my point, doesn't it?

The tax on cigarettes has not been ruled unconstitutional.

A tax on bullets would not be unconstitutional either, I think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #29)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:08 PM

42. yes!

not at all.

bullets, booze, cigs, tax 'em all...burdens on public health.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #29)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:43 PM

60. Cigarettes are not in our Bill of Rights.

There already is a federal tax on ammo. Whether a state 5 cents a bullet tax would survive a court challenge I don't know. A tax which caused undue hardship on low income residents would not survive. Just like requiring people/newspapers using the first amendment to have millions in libel insurance would not survive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #60)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:52 PM

66. neither are bullets, technically

small arms ammunition - definition of small arms ammunition by the ...
www.thefreedictionary.com/small+arms+ammunition
Ammunition for small arms, i.e., all ammunition up to and including 20 millimeters (.787 inches). Want to thank TFD for its existence? Tell a friend about us, add a ...

***

ammo isn't arms. (how'd they forget that part???)

poor people aren't spending hundreds of $ on bullets, so...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #66)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:58 PM

71. That is like saying the ink in printing presses isn't covered by the 1st A.

It is covered and so is ammo. Your last sentence makes my point. Courts will not allow undue burdens to affect rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #71)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 02:03 PM

73. it isn't...

it says freedom of the press, not free ink?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #73)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 02:46 PM

81. You need to read up on your Supreme Court precedents

Start with Minneapolis Star Tribune Company v. Commissioner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #81)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:15 PM

97. that's fascinating, but...

i'm not getting the ink/bullets connection.

i guess that's based on your 2nd amendment ideas, but let me remind you the 2nd doesn't mention bullets..whoops!

what were they thinking?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #97)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:21 PM

102. The government cannot control the press by taxing ink or paper at an onerous rate

the government cannot restrict the right to keep and bear arms by taxing ammunition at an onerous rate. It is called a defacto ban like a poll tax - it is basic civics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #102)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:25 PM

104. define an 'onerous rate'

i know what onerous means.

5 cents sounds fair to me- you shoot targets, check post #16.

totally UNonerous, brah...

and again, bullets are ammo, arms are weapons...

edit: you aren't going to cause TOO much damage throwing bullets...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #104)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:27 PM

106. That is what the courts will decide. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #106)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:31 PM

109. they sure will!

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/423505/february-04-2013/sonia-sotomayor

check out her mugging the camera when she nails him @5:50. ha!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #109)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:34 PM

113. Smart woman

She understands and respects history and tradition. She will not overturn precedent lightly. I am not concerned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #73)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 02:57 PM

91. Do you imagine that the government could ban ink?

Not permissible. Tax yes, but there are certain limits on that as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #91)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:06 PM

95. didn't say they could ban it

just said they don't have to pay for it.

i've never heard of an ink subsidy for a newspaper?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #71)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 02:42 PM

79. We have a right to a free press, but the government can still put a sales tax on ink and paper.

The tax would be used to cover costs generated by gun use. Makes sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #79)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 02:51 PM

84. Familiar with Minneapolis Star Tribune Company v. Commissioner?

it will have bearing here.

On its face, this ruling finds that state tax systems cannot treat the press differently than any other business without significant and substantial justification. The state of Minnesota demonstrated no such justification to impose a special tax on a select few newspaper publishers. Therefore, this tax was in violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Star_Tribune_Company_v._Commissioner

The question that logically comes to mind is whether all business that sell products that have a negative impact on society are treated equally. If guns are singled out then there will be a problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #84)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:58 PM

129. Taxes on paper and ink are not special taxes.

I think ammunition, like cigarettes and alcohol, gasoline and telephone services could be subject to special taxes, and if not taxes, then fees. The problem is that ammunition and guns generate a lot of costs. Surely the wine used in Communion at church is surely subject to the special taxes on alcoholic beverages.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #129)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:14 PM

134. It depends on the purpose of the tax

if it is a backdoor attempt to restrict a constitutional right by making it too expensive to exercise, then it is unconstitutional. That is why Chris Rock's spiel on bullet control is particularly ignorant.

You can tax bullets - it just has to be at a reasonable rate.

Booze and tobacco are not constitutionally protected. I think you could actually tax them with the aim of significantly reducing their use in society - not so bullets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #79)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 02:55 PM

89. The government can't put an undue burden on rights.

For example most states exempt newspapers and magazines from their sales tax. Many exempt sales of religious publications from the sales tax. Both weapons and ammo already have specific federal taxes. They provide the major funding wildlife conservation efforts in the U.S.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #89)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:20 PM

100. "Both weapons and ammo already have specific federal taxes."

which shows that 'arms' are weapons, bullets are not 'arms',

and the state can tax if the feds can.

cool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #100)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:25 PM

142. Wrong, the Supreme Court has ruled ammo is inclusive of 'arms'.

A sword wouldn't be an armament without the blade. A cannon wouldn't be an armament without shot and powder. A firearm is inclusive of shot and charge, whether it be a flintlock, or an AR-15.

Without projectile, propellant, and ignition, a firearm is just a metal tube. 'Arms' is inclusive of ammo, accoutrements like slings, bayonets, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #142)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:45 PM

146. link?


small arms ammunition - definition of small arms ammunition by the ...
www.thefreedictionary.com/small+arms+ammunition
Ammunition for small arms, i.e., all ammunition up to and including 20 millimeters (.787 inches). Want to thank TFD for its existence? Tell a friend about us, add a ...

which case? it seems ammo is FOR arms to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #146)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 05:27 PM

151. Well, from Heller

"We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."

Removing access to ammo would do precisely that.
A tax is clearly permissible (11% already applied at the federal level for rifle ammo).
Any tax applied would have to meet some bar of reasonableness, which is hard to define, as there are few precedents. Could a 5 cent tax be applied per round and survive? That would make a box of Winchester Xpert .22lr cost twice as much. I doubt that would survive. Maybe if you exempted rimfire ammo, and only taxed centerfire at that rate, you might come up with something that would pass muster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #151)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 06:00 PM

157. that was a bit sneaky on my part

i couldn't find any supreme court/ammo links myself...

i hear you, if there are BG checks for ammo, lower taxes for cheaper ammo sounds fair.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #157)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 06:02 PM

158. I could swear that there was a more definitive statement

long back, around Miller, or thereabouts that made a more explicit statement about ammo, but it escapes me at the moment. If I find it, I'll return to this thread, but the explicit question of whether ammo is protected under the 2nd amendment, in so many words, has never been before the court to my knowledge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #158)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 06:12 PM

161. there should be...

good luck and good evening!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #158)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 06:35 PM

165. Don't forget the printer's ink and paper tax..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Star_Tribune_Company_v._Commissioner

These too cute by half measures really don't fool anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #71)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 06:41 PM

167. I cannot concieve of

an instance where $5 on 100 bullets - many times what one would need in self- or home-defense - would constitute 'undue hardship'.

If you paid even $100 (but most likely much more, honestly) for your gun, that is 5% of the cost to arm yourself. Less than 1% if you got yourself a Bushmaster. Far from excessive and undue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Reply #167)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 06:55 PM

169. I wonder what your response would be if a tax of 5 cents a post on the internet ....

was imposed. I can hear the shrieks and howls now. We have free speech! Violation of the 1st A!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #169)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 07:38 PM

172. Like data rate charges

on the cell phone i'm using?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Reply #172)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 12:12 PM

213. So you do have no problem with a First Amendment tax.

I am going to send an email (5 cents) to the White House asking for such a tax. Any emails, texts, posts on the internet, letters to the editor, signs at demonstrations, etc should be taxed. It will raise a lot of money. It will only be 5 cents so it should not be a problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #213)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 12:28 PM

215. Aren't strawmen fun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Reply #167)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 07:28 PM

170. Plus state and local sales tax, plus 11% federal excise tax.

Depending on caliber, it can add up quick. For a .50bmg? Piddly amount. For a brick of .22LR that someone might be subsisting on for small game, big damn deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #170)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 07:41 PM

173. Its still only 5 cents

a bullet. Its still not undue hardship. I bet there's not a lot of subsistence hunters that go through over 200 bullets to supplement their food supply (thats $10>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #71)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 01:32 PM

223. Undue burden, thy name is printing ink

OInk is a hazardous material, so there are tons of regulations about it. In some places, and Idaho is one, you need a permit to store large quantities of hazmat.(We have capacity for 3000 gallons of black and a thousand each of the other three colors.) There are certain inks we can't get, like petroleum based ink and a lot of hazardous pigments.(Yellow pigment used to be made from lead - the pigment in yellow road paint still is, which is why the stripe in the middle of the road is white in all other countries - and blue ink used to be made from cyanide.) There are kinds of ink that are almost impossible to use - in California you can't get a new permit for a rotogravure or solvent-based flexo plant because the ink is an ozone depleter. And the tax on ink is pretty high.

Ammunition, by comparison, is governed by the implied warranty of merchantability - when you put it in a gun and pull the trigger, the bullet is expected to leave the barrel and the gun is expected to not be damaged.

And I still don't think that in most cases five cents per round is an undue burden. Maybe it would be with .22 Long Rifle, which is a dime per round, but mass murderers do not use .22s. They could be exempted and probably will be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #223)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 02:46 PM

224. This is 2013.

Most use of the first amendment does not require ink.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #224)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 04:14 PM

231. Okay, then how about a tax on Internet connectivity or on devices to connect to the Internet?

Since the comment was about the ink in a printing press, I pointed out (helpfully, I hope) that ink, being as dangerous as it is, is very highly regulated. The government could put us out of business in a hurry simply by pulling a few of the permits we hold to store large quantities of hazardous materials.

I am aware that it is 2013; I am also aware that enough applications of the First Amendment require ink that it's still an issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #231)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 05:03 PM

233. People don't use ink for 1st A purposes.

Those who do are newspapers, magazines and commercial advertisers. If the regulations became a burden to those ventures they would attack them constitutionally. They would be successful. The courts would force an accommodation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #233)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:48 PM

241. Regulations are a significant burden to publishers

I will give you a very clear example: rotogravure presses. For many years, they were the only technology suitable for printing large circulation magazines because they are extremely fast. The problem is, the ink contains toluene. And the ink will always contain toluene because it's the only solvent that works.(When environmental regulations started to hit the printing industry, the Albert Frankenthal rotogravure press factory and the BASF chemical company did research using every then-available liquid that ink powder could be mixed into, to find a replacement solvent. Rotogravure uses a liquid ink that is applied to the sheet and completely dries before the next color is applied. There are several feet between color units, but the ink can't be even slightly wet when the web enters the next unit. Anyway, they tried everything from water to gasoline and discovered that due to viscosity, volatility and ability to dissolve ink into it, the only acceptable solvent was toluene.)

The only way the magazine industry stayed in business was for the gravure plants to install solvent recovery systemls that cost as much as a press does - an airtight room has to be built around the press and these presses are like nine-story buildings lying on their sides, and ducts eight feet in diameter move air to the recovery unit.

The thing is, if the publisher of Time Magazine would have demanded a First Amendment exemption from environmental regulations any court in the land would have tossed him out.

Back to the original subject: ammo that can be used to easily kill people is a dollar a round. I think we will see a Boy Scouts-requested exemption on .22 ammo because they use so much, bona fide centerfire target shooters and gun training companies will be able to get a tax-exemption card because they use so much, and for the rest of us a five-percent increase in ammo costs won't be a big deal. It goes up by small amounts all on its own anyway. Remember the Obamacare tanning tax of ten percent? I know someone who owns a tanning bed; the tax has not hurt her tanning business at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #241)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 07:06 PM

243. I guess we have to disagree about what courts would do.

Tanning is not in the Bill of Rights. In one of the first Supreme Court decisions, Marbury v Madison, Chief Justice Marshall said "the power to tax is the power to destroy". So when it comes to rights enumerated in the Constitution courts cast a wary eye at taxation which would create a burden on anyone in society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #243)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 11:50 PM

244. Every tax creates a burden on someone

I think the term you're looking for is "undue burden."

If the burden, if any, is reasonable, and the benefit to society as a whole outweighs the burden the tax may cause to the taxpayer, then the tax is fine.

In the case of the five-cents-per-round ammunition tax...except for people who use shitloads of ammo like target shooters (who I think will be exempted anyway), an extra dollar a box is not an undue burden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #8)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 02:39 PM

77. Because you would be stuck with the ammunition you bought.

You would have to use it all yourself since

Ammunition dealers would need to be licensed and anyone buying from them would need to obtain a permit and complete a background check.
-Create a 5-cent tax on each bullet purchased, for the purpose of funding crime prevention

quoted from the OP.

You could buy ammunition and bring it in but you could not sell it without a license.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:34 PM

56. and only the wealthy would be able to afford it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #56)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:37 PM

58. True, very true.

 

And I sure as hell don't want to give the 1% any more power over us than they already have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #56)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:32 PM

111. Isn't that the whole point of this exercise in wishful thinking?

 

It's not the rich people out there who are committing most of the violent crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #111)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:24 PM

192. a don't think a Dem supermajority in house and senate is 'wishful thinking'...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #192)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:31 PM

199. Democrats are far from being in complete agreement on that measure

 

Democrats from the rural and inland counties in California know better than to vote for something so draconian.

I am a suburban Democrat who will let the powers that be know that I don't support it. I've already spent about $400 on new reloading equipment this week. I'll have to spend a few hundred more to get properly set up, and I'm not paying California sales tax on most of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #199)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:49 PM

200. that's an understatement.

i think 'misguided' might be more fair than draconian. i'll send the guy an email if you aren't gonna, i think the grain thing make a lot of sense.

taxing hobbies to pay for kids mental health and controlling crime sounds more...

californian? i've lived there before, so no snark intended. go banana slugs!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 05:30 PM

152. Good, maybe it will close a few gun stores. That would help a lot.


I would think California could require people to pay the tax, even if bullets are bought out of state -- just like states are starting to collect sales tax on out-of-state on-line purchases.

Of course, there is always the concern about enforcement -- because despite what the gun culture tells us, a lot of the devotees are not as law-abiding as they want us to believe.

They will figure out ways to avoid the tax, just like they'll figure out ways to negate high-cap magazines. If the gun culture would abide by the spirit of the law, we wouldn't have much of a concern. But they won't. They'll take a bayonet mount off guns previously deemed a banned assault weapon to skirt the spirit of the law.

In any event, I applaud law makers who propose/support similar laws. Trouble enforcing it, doesn't seem a very good reason for failing to pass laws that otherwise make sense.

I just hope a bunch of folks don't leave the state because of any tough laws passed. Move to Arizona so they can keep all their guns. Then again, that might be beneficial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:17 PM

2. 5 dollars each is an accurate tax for the expenses involved nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:19 PM

3. I like it,

 

but I seriously doubt it would survive a court challenge and shooters would just drive across state lines and buy ammo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:25 PM

6. They don't allow produce from others states in cars and use checkpoints

 

I would be all in favor of each state having toll booths like NYC does all over, and also
have a zero-tolerance no bullets/no guns travel between states on all sides.
(and zero mail/truck allowed from other states.)

there are ways to get rid of all guns/bullets from the street
I would be in favor of any way possible

only law enforcement while on duty should have guns/bullets
no one else.

imho

If its good to protect the state from produce, by all means guns too.

put a ring around it to eradicate it, by keeping it out of the street with zero tolerance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:29 PM

11. good point!

you can't bring bananas in, i think dogs can smell bullets?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #11)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:36 PM

17. They don't have dogs at these checkpoints.

 

The inspectors aren't even cops, and you can bring in produce from other states, depending what state it came from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #17)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:43 PM

20. they could.

it would give veterans with PTSD something to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #20)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:46 PM

23. True.

 

I'm just against a further erosion of our 4th amendment rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #23)


Response to CTyankee (Reply #33)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:00 PM

38. Not sure I understand what you're saying.

 

Are you saying good to the further erosion of our 4th amendment rights?

I'm pro gun control, but I'm against the further restriction/erosion of our rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #38)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:03 PM

39. sorry, I misread your post, thinking it read 2nd Amendment.

Last edited Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:39 PM - Edit history (1)

I'd be thrilled to see the 2nd gone.

4th is wonderful.

Note to self: must get that eye exam!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #39)


Response to Light House (Reply #40)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:57 PM

70. Naw, I'm just getting old...

been a stressful day, all in all. I'm surrounded by 3 feet of snow and have been completely housebound for 3 solid days. I'd jump out of my second floor window except I'd fall into a large snow bank below and my body wouldn't be found until the snow melted in May...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #39)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 03:18 PM

228. No sweat.

 

I often misunderstand things said.
I'll self delete my reply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #23)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:57 PM

35. so expand the 4th amendent

unreasonable searches, seizures, and SHOOTINGS...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #35)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:59 PM

37. Why the hell not.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:29 PM

12. Not workable.

 

There's 4th amendment issues there, plus, ammo isn't illegal in CA. I would oppose something like that just on 4th amendment grounds.
Also, those bug stations in CA just ask about produce, they don't search your vehicle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #12)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:35 PM

15. all it takes is some new laws, a new court. The NRA is dead, they just don't know it yet.

 

Once one of the 4 are off the US Supreme Court, anything in imagination is possible.
And all 4 are getting old.

Long as the democratic party holds the presidency, the day is coming when the court will
be 8 to 1 or 7 to 2.

shame that each day private citizens will kill more and more people.

Funny too is how those against the President, plus those against drones, don't seem to mind private people killing far more a day, (34 plus daily) from guns
(in the name of some antiquidated version reading of the 2nd.

all it takes is a slightly different court to make a slightly different interpretation and

voila, the old George Bernard Shaw quote comes true
to paraphrase
some men see things as they are
some men see things as they could be and will be

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #15)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:40 PM

19. I may agree that the second amendment is antiquated,

 

but I 100% disagree with your wanting further to curtail the 4th amendment.

You may be OK with checkpoints and random searches, I'm not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #19)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:46 PM

22. if they can scan your license plate or EZ pass or whatever

i'm sure they can come up with an animal or computer bullet sniffer.

but people won't bother wasting the gas, AND the dealer out of state could get busted...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #22)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:49 PM

26. The dealer out of state could get busted for what?

 

This isn't a federal law, this would be a CA state law, you think the border states are going to enforce CA law?
Not likely, especially NV and AZ, they would laugh in the faces of CA authorities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #26)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:06 PM

41. if it was a crime in CA to go out of state

the out of state dealers would be accessories to interstate crimes.

so they might have to start checking IDs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #41)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:08 PM

43. Only if it were federal law.

 

Gun dealers in NV, AZ and OR are not required to ask for ID on ammo purchases, they would just laugh in the faces of CA authorities if CA demanded that they enforce CA law.

I would like to see a federal law requiring ID for ammo purchases, but it still wouldn't be against the law in the border states to sell to CA residents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #43)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:13 PM

44. i think buried in the federal law there's something about dealers needing to be 'sort of sure'

they aren't abetting a crime.

but yes, the law is unreadable gibberish. protection of lawful commerece in arms, i think. trust me, it'll make you cross eyed...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #44)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:18 PM

47. They aren't abetting a federal crime,

 

which this wouldn't be as it would be a CA state law and other states don't have to enforce their laws.

Oh hell, I'm already cross eyed with all the confusion of the nations gun laws. We need a massive overhaul in our gun laws along with a massive overhaul of the mental health system and an end to this insane war on drugs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #47)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:28 PM

52. but the law is incomprehensible, and a BIG YES

on the last three.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 07:51 PM

178. "zero mail/truck allowed from other states"??? Please explain.

Are you really wanting to isolate each state from all the other states. Do you really mean no U.S. Postal Service between Nevada and California, or between any two states? No commercial trucks from one state to another? That is nothing short than the dissolution of the Union into 50 different countries.

I find it hard to believe that you meant that. I must be misunderstanding you. Please explain what you mean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #178)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:10 PM

185. Yes, you are.

 

Guns already are not allowed to be bought into a US Post office.
There is a big sign on the door.
And you can't drop a banned item in a box.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:20 PM

4. Something tells me that Dorner's rampage might put a crimp in this draconian legislation

California - where the Second Amendment does not apply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:29 PM

10. Really? THe Second Amendment doesn't apply

I didn't read anything about taking everyones guns, or anything in the Constitution that says you can't tax Guns or ammunition. If anything everything gun-grabbers believe about the 2nd Amendment is draconian and belongs in the Dark Ages not the 21 Century.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drale (Reply #10)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 02:34 PM

76. It's about making it so difficult that most could not possibly get the guns

Just like the righties that claim they are not banning abortion, but making it nearly impossible for a doctor to get licensed.

If neither side supports the constitution, it shouldn't come as a surprise that it seems to get shredded regardless who's in power.

If you dont like the 2nd amendment...that's fine. You have that right to have the opinion. Go ahead and push to get it changed. But Im sorry...as long as that amendment stands, it is the law of the land. That's the way this country works. We can't just pick and choose what we want to follow based solely on what you feel is obsolete for the times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #76)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 02:41 PM

78. Your really going to try and compare Abortion and Guns?

Guns are something completely unnecessary in life, they are designed to kill and nothing else. Abortions are a body issue and the entire argument about abortion is that women deserve the right to decide what is best for her. When someone else has a gun everyone around them loses the right to decide whats best for them unless they leave but that is basically bullying. The 2nd Amendment was created because of fear of slave rebellions and invasion by the British or others who would take advantage of a weak nation and unless you are in a "Well Regulated Militia" you are not protected under the 2nd amendment.

If you want a peaceful world, not only do we have to get rid of Nuclear weapons, we have to make it harder and harder to get guns and eventually phase guns out all together. Like I said at the beginning, Guns are made for killing and for nothing else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drale (Reply #78)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 02:50 PM

82. Dude, both are protected under the Constitution

Both are protected constitutional rights according to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:45 PM

21. Not sure I understand...

...what Dorner has to do with this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bay Boy (Reply #21)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:59 PM

36. The way some of these cops have behaved during the manhunt, shooting and terrifying civilians...

It makes one sit back and think about just how much firepower they should be allowed as opposed to the rest of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #36)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:54 PM

67. Are you advocating we shoot at cops?

Not really helping your whole "law abiding gun owner" stance is it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Downtown Hound (Reply #67)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 02:43 PM

80. Your words, not mine...

Now calm down and have some hot chocolate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #80)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:18 PM

136. Oh I see, you say people should have equal firepower to cops so...what?

We can feel good about holding our guns and do nothing with them? Make us feel powerful and manly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Downtown Hound (Reply #67)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:40 PM

117. That was quite a leap you took

I didn't see words saying 'shoot cops'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bay Boy (Reply #117)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:21 PM

138. Come on over and meet Mr. Winchester

See, I didn't actually say I was going to shoot anybody. I just made a veiled reference. If your whole argument against gun control is so that we have equal firepower to police, then what, may I ask, is the point of having such firepower if you're not saying we should use it? Unless you're suggesting we use it whenever police get out of hand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:56 PM

34. Doesn't seem draconian to me.

The idea that I never know when some armed madman is going to attack a venue where I'm innocently going about my business - that seems a bit draconian.

In a civilized society we make choices about how we want to live, and those choices involve limits on some activities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:52 PM

65. My gun safe filled with weapons bought in CA disagrees with you. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 05:45 PM

154. I doubt that. People are just gonna say, maybe even tougher gun laws are needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:28 PM

9. The bullet tax

penalizes law abiding people, who use thousands of rounds per year, because of what criminals do with the couple of bullets they buy per year. Not fair is it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bay Boy (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:35 PM

16. maybe target shooters could get a break on the tax- like over $50, it becomes a penny each

if you are REALLY a target shooter...

penalizes law abiding people, who use thousands of rounds per year,

i hope you didn't mean hunters or self-defense...

because of what criminals do with the couple of bullets they buy per year. Not fair is it?

a couple sounds a little low there, and i think the idea is they'll drop a few of them to 'compromise' with the gun lobby?

this IS politics...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #16)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:50 PM

27. Now that is a good idea.

 

Kudos for coming up with a workable solution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #27)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:15 PM

45. thanks!

no shortage of imagination here!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #45)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:20 PM

48. That's why I love DU,

 

great ideas abound here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #48)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:26 PM

51. all you'd need for the tax break would be a member card

from a range or (local)gun club...

NRA not allowed...of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #51)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:33 PM

55. I like it.

 

And in case I haven't said it yet,
FUCK THE NRA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #55)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:45 PM

62. ^^^ FUCK THE NRA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! my my!

sounds like something i'd say!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:33 PM

13. Modern day poll tax

Require all firearms owners to take an hours-long gun safety course every year, similar to what the state now requires for obtaining a concealed weapon permit


I'm sure the class won't be free and won't be at convenient times, so heck with the poor or the busy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bay Boy (Reply #13)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:47 PM

24. you don't vote with a gun

unless you are in Mali or somewhere

how are you sure of this? CA has a reputation for oppressing the poor?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #24)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:54 PM

31. I guess I wasn't clear...

...I'm not saying it is a poll tax but it's like a poll tax. Having to spend money to have a right to purchase or to continue to own a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bay Boy (Reply #31)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:16 PM

46. We tax gas,cigs and alcohol already

this is no different and could offset the cost gun violence causes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libtodeath (Reply #46)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 02:53 PM

87. None of which are mentioned in the Constitution

the right to keep and bear arm is a enumerated civil liberty. It is not like gas,cigs and alcohol for christ sakes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #87)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:19 PM

99. bullets are NOT mentioned in the constitution either.(neither are guns of course)

 

just one recent court
a new court could trump the old court

and all of a sudden, states rights don't matter???



there is no constitutional right banning tolls and taxes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #99)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:28 PM

107. Neither is abortion - do you want to go down that path?

I don't support state's rights - neither should you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #107)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:43 PM

118. I do support California having check points for produce and applying it forward

 

and applying it to keep bullets/guns out of the state.

And Illinois, and NYC and any other place that wants it.

Then making their own laws.
Individual states already can call for curfews, so without taking ones gun totally away,
one could make many new laws and protections for anyone caught in the street with one.

Gun free zones can be expanded.

Individual states can change their law about where a gun is allowed.

And making sure NO guns or bullets end up anywhere without anyone knowning and having it put on a list or publicized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #118)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:46 PM

121. If a police state makes you feel safer

then more power to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #121)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:53 PM

125. Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose, which is nothing.

 

I personally prefer something to nothing.

I myself don't prefer anarchists, extremists, and absolutists and thirdpartyites.

and I don't prefer guns to living and I do think the NRA should be reclassified as a terror org.
then take away their lecturn and million dollar suits and talking points as a forum.

Why the media is granting free airtime I don't know.
It is unprecedent in history.

imho.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #125)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:55 PM

127. Put aside your fear

don't forget that you have never been safer in America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #127)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:02 PM

131. thanks to precautions after 9-11, OklaCity and other events

 

and I am someone that in the late 1970s-early 80s was in the WTC every single day.
and every day I drive five minutes, I see the NYC skyline and the WTC missing.

I lived during sandy for 9 days in the dark.
Not once did I ever even think of having a gun at any time.

the old canard about people in situations like that needing a gun to protect from people stealing their goods they hoarded while others may have nothing, sometimes I think
it is the one with the guns who will take from someone else without a gun.

For someone without a gun to want a gun, it means becoming the monster that had the gun one never wanted in the first place.

Seems like those that want guns/bullets for any reason are the first ones that don't want authority to have ways of protecting everyone.

And equating private with federal is a red herring.One has nothing to do with the other.

imho

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #131)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:15 PM

135. I don't own guns for self protection. I live in a very safe area

my family shoots for recreation - we are competitive target shooters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #135)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:20 PM

137. Why need bullets then? You can do that without real buillets.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #137)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:25 PM

141. No I can't

we shot High Power rifle competition - a very popular event. We are shooting at ranges up to 600 yards. It takes real rifles and real bullets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #87)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:20 PM

101. How about pursuit of happieness or promote the general welfare

We charge sales tax on various things as well as user fees like tolls for highways so spare me the bs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libtodeath (Reply #101)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:30 PM

108. The Supreme Court is several steps ahead of you

The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."

Moreover, the Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power, but a qualification on the taxing power which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government. The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position", as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.

As such, these clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #108)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:37 PM

116. Then declare every fee,permit,registration,tax on sales,sin taxes,property taxes

unconstitutional and take it to the court to get them removed.
Good luck with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libtodeath (Reply #116)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:44 PM

120. You have misunderstood the argument

The point is the government cannot uses taxes and fees to restrict you from exercising a constitutional right. That is why poll taxes went away. That is why ink and newsprint are usually tax free. That is why you don't have to register and pay a fee to start your own church.

If a bullet tax is simply a backdoor method to make gun ownership too expensive then it is unconstitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #120)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:52 PM

124. No,you just want to cherry pick something and say it doesnt apply

highway tolls can restrict constitutional rights if one wants to claim that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libtodeath (Reply #124)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:53 PM

126. ok. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #87)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:46 PM

147. Are you trying to argue that taxes on guns and ammo is unconstitutional?

We already have taxes on guns and ammo. This bill would only increase taxes on ammo.

So either the existing taxes are unconstitutional, or you accept that the taxes are legitimate - which means they can be increased.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #147)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 08:00 AM

207. It depends on the intent and effect of the taxes

taxes on guns and ammo certainly are constitutional in principle. I have no problems with the present levels of taxation.

They would be unconstitutional if their effect, deliberate or unforeseen, would be to inhibit the exercise of a civil liberty. If, for example, the stated purpose of such a tax would be to reduce gun ownership by making it too expensive then such a tax would be unconstitutional. Chris Rock's $5000 tax per bullet would be unconstitutional. Such taxes would be seen as a backdoor ban - a defacto ban is unconstitutional.

So it depends solely on what the actual tax is and what the courts have to say about it. That's my only point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bay Boy (Reply #31)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:24 PM

49. What? A little tax on your obsession isn't worth consideration?

You want to buy 10,000 rounds of ammo for when the aliens invade or the zombie Apocalypse occurs, pay the tax now so we can enjoy the spoils of your paranoia......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DainBramaged (Reply #49)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 02:53 PM

85. Better idea: Let's put a $10,000 tax on vehicles that get less than 27 MPG.

It would cut way down on carbon emissions-of course, 90% of the UAW members that currently build full-sized
pickups, minivans and SUVs would be laid off as sales of these would plummet...

Be careful when you advocate for the goring of anothers' ox, lest your livestock become endangered in turn...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #85)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 02:56 PM

90. I'm all for that

even our Corvette gets 29......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DainBramaged (Reply #90)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:21 PM

103. Corvettes are actually pretty light- minivans, trucks & most SUVs not so much...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #103)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:25 PM

105. I'm still for it so your argument is moot

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bay Boy (Reply #31)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:25 PM

50. guns and ammo are consumer products

there should be a better tax scale for guns, too.

20% up to $250

15% from $250-$1000

12% from $1001-$1500

10% $1500 and up

all taxes go to public safety or domestic violence prevention

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #50)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:35 PM

57. Another great idea.

 


You're on a roll here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #57)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:44 PM

61. wife + kid gone for a few days!

i'll be here 'til thursday...by here i mean not distracted!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #61)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:50 PM

64. Look forward to talking and exchanging ideas with you.

 

Meanwhile, I've got a business to run so I'll be back tonight.
Have a great day and try to stay out of trouble what with the wife and kids being gone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #64)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:54 PM

68. i'm ready for anything!



hee hee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #50)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:56 PM

69. Your tax structure is the opposite of what I think it should be.

Much like a gas guzzler tax, it is the expensive weaponry sought after by "hobbyists" and "collectors" that should bear the brunt of taxation. Your tax scale is regressive in that it discriminates against the poor waitress working the night shift who has a legitimate need for self defense in favor of more dangerous weapons suitable for offensive use. But we should definitely raise taxes on the sale of firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluedigger (Reply #69)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 02:01 PM

72. a poor waitress could get a tax break with her paystub + safety class certificate

i hear you, but i guess the higher tax on cheaper guns is just for balance?

a straight rate isn't fair, how about 10% for cheap ones, 20 for middle range (highest % bought?), and 15% for 'high end'?

i'm not even sure what the avg. prices are these days, so...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #72)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 02:27 PM

74. That's more betterer.

I still don't see why there is a need to give a rate break for high dollar weapons, though, unless you want to support the industry. I like the tax break idea, maybe even add in a one time exemption for initial purchase.

I'd probably make two rate breaks, with the first at $400 and the second at $800, with 10%, 15%, and 20% tax rates, respectively. I think you can buy new handguns, rifles, and shotguns for under $400, so sportsmen wouldn't be priced out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluedigger (Reply #74)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 02:51 PM

83. sounds good!

unless you want to support the industry.

HA! i was just trying to be nice...not quite myself today. (jk)

your rates flow betta, good idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #50)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 02:54 PM

88. No - they are a protected civil liberty

doesn't anyone read the damn Constitution anymore?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #88)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:04 PM

94. you're late for the party!

which part? there are lots of angles...it doesn't mention ammo anywhere...hmm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #94)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:08 PM

96. Arms = weapons and ammunition.

several hundred years of British and US common law say you are wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #96)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:16 PM

98. link?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #98)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:32 PM

110. Common sense is allowed here

in your case, perhaps not.

Did bongbong leave you all his smilies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #110)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:34 PM

114. well, common sense says you can't have a nuclear bomb, therefore,

WEAPONS are limited.

no, he left me his bong. it works great!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #114)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:37 PM

115. Yes - and if you actually understood US law

and Supreme Court rulings, you wouldn't be bringing up such stupid arguments.

No one is arguing that weapons can't be regulated. But constitutional rights are held to the highest standards of protections - read up on Strict Scrutiny and it will be clear why gun control groups and cities keep getting their asses handed to themselves by the courts on a regular basis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #115)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:43 PM

119. hmm. i understand Heller, am i missing something?

"nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26"

edit #2:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #119)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:48 PM

122. But those laws still have to pass Constitutional muster

you are battling a strawman here. I don't disagree with you that guns can be regulated. But those laws still have to Constitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #122)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:57 PM

128. i'm sure some will...

which is great news!

the one about felons not living in a house with gun, for instance, why not?

more like fighting a wicker man, him being the gun lobby. they must be sacrificed for the good of the people. fire not necessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bay Boy (Reply #31)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 12:28 PM

214. voting is free, guns aren't

so that doesn't really work- you DO have to spend money for gun AND ammo already...both are taxed now, so...

i don't follow

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #24)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 05:06 AM

204. CA definitely punishes the poor. They're just not well known and quiet about it.

Get a ticket, can't afford to pay it, watch it increase by 300$. If you're rich you don't care. If you're poor, you're extra screwed, since now your license will most certainly get yanked and it's even harder to afford the bill. Then you get to pay the DMV to reactivate your license, that's another 50$ or round a bouts. In the mean time you have to drive, because that's the only way you get to work, you get caught, they impound and CRUSH your car, if your car is at all decent it's gone, and you're scrounging for a clunker, and likely unemployed now.

Isn't our Just Us system great?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sirveri (Reply #204)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 12:30 PM

216. i wouldn't blame Cali for that. 'departments of vehicles' are atrocious wherever you go

Get a ticket, can't afford to pay it, watch it increase by 300$.

happens everywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:54 PM

30. Way to go.

 

Let's piss off 15,000,000 Californian voters who are gun owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Reply #30)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:30 PM

54. California 21.30% total pop 36,756,666 gun owners 7,829,170 8.04%

that's 2009, but you're a overestimating a bit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Reply #30)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:47 PM

63. No, most will be fine with it, and those that aren't already vote Republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:29 PM

53. Some thoughts

Prevent the future sale, purchase, manufacture, importation, or transfer of any firearms that can accept detachable magazines

This is interesting. This actually achieves what people seem to think the Assault Weapons ban is supposed to do. It is also a de facto ban on handguns other than revolvers. That will be very interesting to see.

Close the "bullet button" loophole by banning tools that allow the quick changing of gun magazines

That's a bit disingenuous. The bullet button was a design attempt to slow down magazine changes. It's not a loophole; it was gunmakers' attempt at working with the CA legislature.

Regulate ammunition sales like the state regulates gun sales. Ammunition dealers would need to be licensed and anyone buying from them would need to obtain a permit and complete a background check.

This is an outstanding idea, and something that should be replicated nationally.

Create a 5-cent tax on each bullet purchased, for the purpose of funding crime prevention

Like all sales taxes this is regressive, but in general I'm in favor of taxation.

Prevent felons and other adults barred from gun ownership from living in a house that contains any guns

Good idea, though obviously the devil is in the implementation details.

Prohibit the loaning or sale of a firearm between people who know each other personally

I must not understand this. I can sell a gun to a stranger but not a family member?

Take steps to phase out legal possession of assault weapons that were purchased before California outlawed their sale

yeah, good luck with that. This is exactly why registration never gets anywhere.

Require all firearms owners to take an hours-long gun safety course every year, similar to what the state now requires for obtaining a concealed weapon permit

I'm all for safety courses. What happens when people don't go?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #53)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:43 PM

59. we agree 62.5%! wow!

Close the "bullet button" loophole by banning tools that allow the quick changing of gun magazines

...That's a bit disingenuous. The bullet button was a design attempt to slow down magazine changes. It's not a loophole; it was gunmakers' attempt at working with the CA legislature.


it is the word loophole there, and bullet button that are the problem, 'ban tools for quick mag changes', i guess wouldn't be necessary if they hadn't invented the buttons in the 1st place? right?


Prohibit the loaning or sale of a firearm between people who know each other personally

...I must not understand this. I can sell a gun to a stranger but not a family member?


isn't it already a no go to sell to a stranger? i'm sure they'll think of that somewhere along the line.

Take steps to phase out legal possession of assault weapons that were purchased before California outlawed their sale

...yeah, good luck with that. This is exactly why registration never gets anywhere.


POLITICS! maybe they did that to freak out gun owners, and are planning on giving it up as a 'compromise'?

but the rest, we're on the SAME PAGE!

as far as the tax thing, it would be 'progressive' to use the money for 1/2way houses for abused women, or many other such things.

found some java, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 02:53 PM

86. Smart and Sensible

Let's get this done California!!!
If there is one or two parts of this law that isn't working and needs to be tweaked then we'll tweak them, but let's just get this passed first, because it will save lives now!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 02:58 PM

92. i think taxing the crap out of ammunition is an answer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:00 PM

93. and now for my 2,000th post...a bit of ironic sarcasm...totally unlike me, i know



i'm sorry if the band's name offends anyone, all I can say is it is supposed to, like everything Jello Biafra does...

had to post this, it happened to be playing when i noticed i had 1,999 posts.

and don't worry jerry brown isn't going to be Pres, just a little 80s hardcore!

Jello is a renowned crank- (probably really nice in person, never met him. Joey Shithead from D.O.A. is a great guy...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_%C3%9Cber_Alles
The song focuses on Jerry Brown, the Governor of California 1975-1983 (and later 2011–present), and is sung from his perspective. An imaginary version of Brown outlines a hippie-fascist vision for America, in which his "suede denim secret police" kill un-cool people with "organic poison gas" chambers. Lines such as "Serpent's egg already hatched" (a reference to a line from William Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar) comment on the corrosive nature of power. The lines "Big Bro on white horse is near" and "now it is 1984" refers to the totalitarian regime of George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, describing a future (from 1979) where Jerry Brown has become President Brown presiding over secret police and gas chambers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:33 PM

112. I just ordered about $400 worth of reloading equipment. I've reloaded in the past.

 

A 5-cent per round ammunition task would make it worth my time to get back into that hobby.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #112)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:22 PM

139. FINALLY! Three digits in replies before somebody mentions the obvious workaround.

Enthusiastic hobbyists already reload extensively - this would just make it universal in CA. The equipment is a essentially a scale and a handpress and the ingredients are basic multi-use commodities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:51 PM

123. 5 cents a bullet will not effect crime

It'll only hurt law abiding gun owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ButterflyBlood (Reply #123)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:07 PM

132. it will if put towards...stopping crime?

what's an extra $5? less than popcorn at the movies.

if you have a reason to buy bulk, (target shooting) it could go down to 1 cent each, see above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #132)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:27 PM

143. What would the money be spent on to reduce crime?

Cops don't seem to be hard up for fancy equipment, and do we really need more ticket-dispensers, which is what added officers would be as they are the revenue stream? What might work would be unconstitutional under 4A anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #143)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:21 PM

191. i'm just a farmer, call Mr. Bonta and ask him?

A similar measure from Oakland’s Rob Bonta would aid law enforcement in cities with the highest violent-crime rates

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #191)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 07:06 AM

206. What good would more cops do?

Most street thugs have lengthy arrest records already. They are back on the streets before the cop finishes the paperwork. You need places to wharehouse the thugs, meanings prisons and courts that will put them there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #206)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 12:39 PM

218. it doesn't say 'more cops'

for instance, there are these microphones they can put around cities that alert cops instantly when shots are fired

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. It is the intent of the Legislature that would enact
legislation to establish a tax on all ammunition sold in retail
stores and gun shows in the state and direct the revenue from the tax
to a high-crime prevention fund for crime prevention efforts in
high-crime areas of the state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #218)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 01:07 PM

220. Those would be good.

I have read that they are excellent at distinguishing between shots and very similar sounds that humans mistake for shots, and for pinpointing the location.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #220)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 01:12 PM

222. ya, they're kinda cool- earthquake technology...

History

Determination of the origin of gunfire by sound was conceived prior to World War I where it was first used operationally.

In the early 1990s, the areas of East Palo Alto and eastern Menlo Park, California, were besieged with crime related to drug traffic. During 1992 there were 42 homicides in East Palo Alto, making it the per capita murder capital of the United States. The Menlo Park police department was often called upon to investigate when residents reported gunshots; however there was no way to determine their source from scattered 911 calls.

In late 1992 John C. Lahr, a PhD seismologist at the nearby U.S. Geological Survey, approached the Menlo Park police department to ask if they would be interested in applying seismological techniques to locate gun shots. Others had also approached the Menlo Park police department suggesting ways to help the police by means of gunshot location systems. The police chief arranged a meeting with local inventors and entrepreneurs who had expressed an interest in the problem. At that point there were no solutions to tracking gunshots, only a desire to do so. One key attendee was Robert Showen, a Stanford Research Institute employee and expert in acoustics.

Lahr decided to go ahead with his plans to demonstrate the feasibility of locating the gunshots, relying on his background in the earthquake location techniques and monitoring in Alaska. A network consisting of 1 wired and 4 radio-telemetered microphones was established, with his home in eastern Menlo Park becoming the command center. Lahr modified the software typically used for locating earthquakes and recorded the data at a higher sample rate than is used for regional seismology. After gunshots were heard Lahr would determine their location while his wife monitored the police radio for independent confirmation of their source.

Using this system, Lahr was able to demonstrate to the police and others that this technique was highly effective, as the system was able to locate gunshots occurring within the array to within a few tens of meters. Although additional techniques from the seismic world were known that could better automate the system and increase its reliability, those improvements were outside the scope of this feasibility study.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunfire_locator

***

News

SST, Inc. Strengthens Secure Data Access & Delivery for Integration with Its Industry-Leading ShotSpotter Solutions
Saginaw city leaders approve $63,150 as annual payment to maintain ShotSpotter contract
Dec 10, 2012
Atlantic City set to install gunshot detection
Dec 09, 2012
Big Trouble in Little Town
Dec 05, 2012
More Success Solving Violent Crimes than Property Crimes
Dec 02, 2012

http://www.shotspotter.com/news-and-events

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:59 PM

130. crossroads

 

I own quite a few weapons (10) and right now im debating whether to add a third AR, a third AK, a M1A2, or add a m1 to my historic rifle collection which includes 6 so far ( m1 carbine, mosin-nagant, K98k, lee-enfield, arisaka and a 1903 springfield). Any input?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scott.K (Reply #130)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:09 PM

133. aren't you that 16 year old kid?

join a basketball team, shoot hoops, like i said before.

you'll never find a good woman with that kind of arsenal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #133)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:22 PM

140. Ha

 

Ha. My father did. He and bonus mother (if you remember, I do not like the term step anything) have been happily married for 7 years with out a single huge argument. And before you go and ask what happened, he and my mom were both in the navy at the same time and on different ships and stayed married some how for 9 years. Now, I hate basketball and I play football. And right now I do have a girl friend who comes shooting with me on the weekends. And next time, try and better
understand something before passing judgment. And don't hate people for their pastimes. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scott.K (Reply #140)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:35 PM

144. maybe try the gungeon?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172

cause you are definitely asking the wrong guy!

get a freakin' tommy gun if it floats (sinks) your boat.

not hatin', just sayin', stay out of trouble.

life isn't A Christmas Story meets Mad Max, if that means anything to ya.

happy, um, gun time! if you really are 16, you're doing well, i guess.

with punctuation, at least! (jk)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #144)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:40 PM

145. hmm.

 

Well my punctuation is going to be wrong in a few places because my phone wont co-operate. Any way, if you had no ideas, why comment? You obviously wanted to see if you could push my buttons. Any way, just trying to get enough replies so I can make a thread...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scott.K (Reply #145)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:50 PM

148. i wasn't being snarky about the punctuation - (jk) is just kidding

you don't need replies, you need 10 posts.

i thought you were pushing MY buttons- happens on these internets...

good luck with, um, stuff. what position do you play? i'll guess...CB and/or RB.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scott.K (Reply #130)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 06:09 PM

160. That makes me think of the gun culture guy in 2008 primaries and Biden's response.



See Biden's response at about 1:10 into it.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:51 PM

149. There are some AWESOME measures in this legislation that nobody is talking about at all

-Prevent the future sale, purchase, manufacture, importation, or transfer of any firearms that can accept detachable magazines
-Regulate ammunition sales like the state regulates gun sales. Ammunition dealers would need to be licensed and anyone buying from them would need to obtain a permit and complete a background check.
-Prohibit the loaning or sale of a firearm between people who know each other personally
-Take steps to phase out legal possession of assault weapons that were purchased before California outlawed their sale
-Require gun owners to purchase insurance to cover damage they may inflict



I love the idea of outlawing guns that accept detachable magazines - which would really put a huge damper on the semi-automatic industry.

Also love the idea of requiring background checks EVERY TIME someone wants to buy ammo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #149)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 05:41 PM

153. i'll talk about 'em! (perhaps the 'gun enthusiasts' are shocked into speechlessness?)

that detachable mag thing is going to freak gun peeps out, i think i get why.

am i right, shouldn't it say 'detachable mags larger than the standard capacity'? and then set the capacity at like 8 or 10?

because ALL pistols that aren't revolvers have those mags?

or are they trying to all ban semi-auto pistols. the wording is kinda confusing there?

never mind, i answered my own question- (can somebody tweet the author @ mother jones and tell him to fix that? RIFLES not firearms? right?)

cuz, this is the link from the article right above where it says 'firearms':

http://sd06.senate.ca.gov/news/2013-02-07-proposals-curb-gun-violence
Senate Democrats’ Ten Legislative Actions

REGULATION: Closing loopholes in existing laws

Fixed magazines (Steinberg): Prohibit the future sale, purchase, manufacture, importation, or transfer in California of semi-automatic rifles that can accept detachable magazines. This legislative action decisively closes the loopholes that have allowed the gun industry to flood our communities with rapid-reload battlefield weapons.

***

the BG check for bullets, why not, if you aren't doing anything wrong. it takes 90 seconds, and it'll stop(or slow down) people from selling bullets on the black market.

i bet google knows when you buy gas @ the gas station, no big deal.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #153)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 07:48 PM

175. I haven't had to go through a NICS check for almost 15 years.

All I have to do is show my Texas CHL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #175)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 07:55 PM

179. gotcha.

if you had an 'ammo purchase permit', no need for a BG check every time.
do you live in Cali or TX?

Ammunition Purchase Permit (de Leon): Expanding on what Los Angeles and Sacramento are already doing requiring anyone wishing to purchase ammunition in California to obtain a purchase permit first, by passing a full and complete background check.
http://sd06.senate.ca.gov/news/2013-02-07-proposals-curb-gun-violence

they're on that...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #179)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 03:17 PM

227. Read slower. "Texas CHL" n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #227)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 03:32 PM

229. as long as you aren't using it in Cali

you didn't really specify.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #149)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 05:46 PM

155. +10000000000000000 and more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #149)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 07:49 PM

176. Absolutely! Great proposals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 05:22 PM

150. The five-cent-per-round tax is a dollar a box, folks

I just went to cabelas.com and looked up the price of ammo. For a box of 20, it's between $20 and $25 depending on what you get.

Only the guys who burn up thousands of rounds will notice a nickel extra a round.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #150)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 05:47 PM

156. Good point, make it a lot more, and require background checks for ammo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #150)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 06:04 PM

159. I dont mind the tax

The public range I go to is too busy as it is. This tax will make the poor people go less, so I won't have to wait to as long to shoot.

I make enough money, so I can just pay the tax.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #159)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 06:18 PM

163. Seriously, Travis, are truly poor people partaking in expensive hobbies like target shooting?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #163)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 06:32 PM

164. The post was sarcasm.

But yes, I think there are some poor people that go target shooting. .22 is currently about 3 cents a round. This tax would increase the price about 200%, which probably would make some poor people quit shooting.

I am against the tax, I just find it funny how many people will bitch about regressive taxes, but when it comes to guns and cigarettes, they love regressive taxes.

For the record, I am against the tax, and I don't live in CA. Even if I did, I reload, so I wouldn't be paying the tax anyway. If I did have to pay it, I could just drive to a neighboring state, buy a few thousand rounds of ammo, and keep it until I need it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #163)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 07:29 PM

171. expensive hobbies?

Ever hear of plinking? You may want to differentiate between competitive target shooting, which can be an expensive hobby and recreational target shooting, which is not particularily expensive as hobbies go. Lot's of people who would be considered "poor" can afford a few bucks to buy a couple of boxes of .22's and spend an afternoon plinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #150)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 06:45 PM

168. For the most common type of ammunition sold, by far, it would amount to $2.50 per box

 

A significant percentage of the price.



Only the guys who burn up thousands of rounds will notice a nickel extra a round.

A person who can barely afford a box of .22 ammunition would notice it too. It would be one of the most regressive taxes ever created.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #168)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 07:50 PM

177. sure doesn't sound regressive to me- a person that can barely afford $4 probably doesn't shoot much

but, write them a letter- 2 or 3 cents sounds fair for .22s, but 5 cents prob. isn't enough for a 30-06.

here ya go- tax the GRAIN
There are 15.43236 grains in 1 gram - and on loaded boxes of ammuntion, the grain is for the bullet weight.

.22s are 30 grain 3 cents
.223s ~ 150 grain, 15 cents
.32 are ~85 grain, 8.5 cents
(maybe cut the cents by 50%?)

44 Magnum heavy weight hunting bullets - Is the 44 becoming ...
www.lasc.us/fryxell44overweight.htm
While a 300 grain bullet in either a .44 Magnum or a .45 Colt will shoot through a deer from pretty much any angle, many hunters dream of hunting larger game, ...

look, i guessed right-
One bill, by Assemblyman Roger Dickinson of Sacramento would impose a 5-cent tax per bullet sold to expand a program that screens children for mental illness. A similar measure from Oakland’s Rob Bonta would aid law enforcement in cities with the highest violent-crime rates. A third would require licenses for ammunition dealers and have them report all sales.

The bills are among nine aimed at gun violence after mass shootings last year in Newtown, Connecticut; Aurora, Colorado; and Oak Creek, Wisconsin. A tax increase in California requires a two-thirds majority vote by the legislature or a public referendum. Democratic supermajorities control both chambers.

“It shouldn’t be so easy to buy bullets, the very thing that makes a gun deadly,” said Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, a Democrat from Berkeley. “While we have numerous safeguards in place to purchase a gun, it’s easier today to buy bullets than to buy alcohol, cigarettes or some cold medicines."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-29/california-lawmakers-propose-per-bullet-tax-to-curb-gun-violence.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #177)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:16 PM

198. Whatever. I'll never pay it no matter how it's calculated.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 06:17 PM

162. Majority unconstitutional... and a couple of particularly stupid/illegal ones...

 

-Prohibit the loaning or sale of a firearm between people who know each other personally

-Prevent the future sale, purchase, manufacture, importation, or transfer of any firearms that can accept detachable magazines

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyote_Tan (Reply #162)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:00 PM

181. says who?

-Prohibit the loaning or sale of a firearm between people who know each other personally

-Prevent the future sale, purchase, manufacture, importation, or transfer of any firearms that can accept detachable magazines


so you have to sell it thru a dealer, no big deal.

and the 2nd is supposed to say 'rifle', they made a typo. 'rifles with detachable mags'

which makes a lot more sense

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 06:38 PM

166. It would appear

It would appear that most of these proposals are less about actually reducing the rate of violent crime and more about punishing law abiding gun owners. Prohibition rarely succeeds, if the expense of a legal product gets too high, then obtaining the prohibited item illicitly will becomes more appealing to the majority of those who seek the product. Just as the Volstead act did and current drug policies do little to curb availability, neither will monetary prohibition directed towards ammunition accomplish much. All it will do is create new avenues for criminals to exploit consumer demand and force much of the commerce of the commodity into the black market.

Some of the more vocal gun grabbers remind me of Carrie Nation and the W.C.T.U., with the zealotry with which they approach this issue.

There are some reasonable, common sense gun and crime control measures that could find a broad base of support, that could actually help reduce the level of gun violence in this country but instead, zealots on the margins will push an overly restrictive agenda to the point that eliminates the possibility of compromise and the end result is likely to be that nothing substantive will occur.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #166)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:03 PM

182. no, it wouldn't. you weren't specific enough to really follow

There are some reasonable, common sense gun and crime control measures that could find a broad base of support, that could actually help reduce the level of gun violence in this country but instead

blah blah, whatever.

so what are these 'measures', are they a secret?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #182)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:14 PM

188. measures

I've mentioned them before. They would include requiring that all firearms transfers be conducted through a licensed FFL dealer and also the creation of a Federal Gun Owners license that would be required to be able to purchase firearms or ammunition. Requirements for the license would include a background check, mental health screening and passing a basic safety and skills test. Other reasonable measures would be to beef up the penalties for using a gun when committing a crime, as well as severe sanctions for not complying with existing firearms laws. I think that most reasonable gun owners (that's not an oxymoron) would agree to those sorts of regulatory changes and it would be a reasonable and attainable starting point for federal gun legislation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #188)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:19 PM

190. those sound great, still wondering which you don't like?

Requirements for the license would include a background check, mental health screening and passing a basic safety and skills test.

they're putting the ammo tax towards mental health screening, for instance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #190)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:37 PM

194. which don't I like?

I don't like the ammo tax for a start. There is already a 10% federal tax on guns and ammo, in addition to state sales tax, where applicable. Individuals who use lots of ammo are not a problem from a gun violence or a law enforcement standpoint and they are generally not the ones who are committing acts of violence with firearms. While they may pose a convenient target for levying another tax, it's misdirected.

I also don't like regulations that would essentially ban semi-automatic pistols and many semi-automatic rifles. Again, the law abiding are penalized for the actions of a tiny, tiny, tiny minority. Whether you are talking about "assault weapons" or "cop killer bullets" or any other number of media created "bogeymen", they have little to nothing to do with the underlying reasons that cause some individuals to wreak havoc and create unspeakable acts of of violence. Address the root cause, not the convenient scapegoat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #194)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:49 PM

196. the ammo tax goes towards the 'root cause' you speak of

One bill, by Assemblyman Roger Dickinson of Sacramento would impose a 5-cent tax per bullet sold to expand a program that screens children for mental illness. A similar measure from Oakland’s Rob Bonta would aid law enforcement in cities with the highest violent-crime rates.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-29/california-lawmakers-propose-per-bullet-tax-to-curb-gun-violence.html

check post 187 about taxes- 5 cents per is a little silly, given all the diff. sizes of bullets

the 2nd part-
criminals do things with guns and ammo, so yes, 'root cause', sure, whatever that is.

still kinda vague, not sure how 30 round mags aren't part of 'assault'?

gun dealers can be criminals, too, in fact there are many.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #196)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:30 PM

202. replied

I replied to #187, silly idea to tax bullets based on weight.

Criminals that are doing things with guns are generally already in violation of existing laws, kind of pointless to add additional laws for them to violate, when those laws are also overly restrictive on law abiding individuals. Demonstrate how making a semi-automatic pistol that is already illegally possessed by a criminal, "more" illegal because the detachable magazine is now illegal, going to have any tangible impact on crime? Do you think criminals are going to turn in their newly illegal detachable magazines? Please, let's be real.

Magazine capacity has very little to do with the potential danger posed by a particular weapon. Uncle Joe's 12 gauge pump shotgun is unfortunately equally capable of killing just as many people as were killed in some of the recent high profile mass killings and I can't envision any sort of legislation that would have a hope in hell of being enacted that would result in the confiscation of the 50 million or so pump shotguns that are sitting in peoples closets.

I realize that it's sexy to go after "scary black" assault weapons and that is plays well for the microphones but from a practical standpoint it will have very little if any impact on reducing violent crime.

Gun dealers can be criminals, as can cops, Congressmen and just about any other sort of person. Your point is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 07:45 PM

174. Great proposals, especially the ammo tax. As the country is turning Blue, these same laws

will soon be proposed on the national level - and will eventually be passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by a Democratic President.

Get used to it, NRA and all your shills and sycophants: the gun culture is on its way out, and good riddance to it.

Kick, Rec.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #174)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 07:57 PM

180. Ain't gonna happen...

...for the same reason that poll taxes were declared unconstitutional.

A tax on a manufactured good is one thing, but it sounds like they're trying to create a "sin tax" out of Constitutional right.

And, as always, follow the money - who stands to benefit from this new inflow of tax dollars?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #180)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:05 PM

183. Oh yes it is, and in our lifetimes, the way the country is trending. Further, as poll taxes

have nothing to do with this story, and are in no way analogous, the comparison is false. It's laughable to see the desperation with which our "pro gun progressives"* try to make the absurd comparison between voting in an election and buying ammunition for their PRD's.




*( )


Edit: typo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #180)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:06 PM

184. sure it is, why else would the gun lobby be terrified?

The bills are among nine aimed at gun violence after mass shootings last year in Newtown, Connecticut; Aurora, Colorado; and Oak Creek, Wisconsin. A tax increase in California requires a two-thirds majority vote by the legislature or a public referendum. Democratic supermajorities control both chambers.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-29/california-lawmakers-propose-per-bullet-tax-to-curb-gun-violence.html

A tax on a manufactured good is one thing, but it sounds like they're trying to create a "sin tax" out of Constitutional right.
And, as always, follow the money - who stands to benefit from this new inflow of tax dollars?


same link-
One bill, by Assemblyman Roger Dickinson of Sacramento would impose a 5-cent tax per bullet sold to expand a program that screens children for mental illness. A similar measure from Oakland’s Rob Bonta would aid law enforcement in cities with the highest violent-crime rates. A third would require licenses for ammunition dealers and have them report all sales.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #184)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:11 PM

186. Exactly. Spot on reply. Every time an article or notion comes up about increasing the ammo

tax, our "pro gun progressives"* get very cranky and angry and just insist - INSIST! - that such a tax would be "unconstitutional," as well as try to make phony comparisons to the poll tax.

That's very telling that they damn well know that with the ammo tax their deadly little hobby truly would be in serious jeopardy: they also are well aware that it is would be constitutional, as there is a tax on ammunition right now.

It's truly laughable stuff, to watch them scream and throw tempter tantrums about sensible measures and regulations that will curb America's gun culture, and its deadly habits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #174)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:15 PM

189. nice sig line

11 juries, wow!

good work!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #189)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:25 PM

193. Thanks! There was an organized attempt to alert-stalk by a small group obsessed with me in

Meta: it probably comes as no surprise that that group was made up of an angry clique of "pro gun progressives"*.

I have since trashed the thread so don't know if it's still active, but last I saw it was pushing more than 6,000 views. The funny thing is, in posting such an alert-stalking thread, they actually brought attention to the sig line in a way I never could have on my own. Be careful what you wish for stuff, and all that!

Anyway, that's eleven juries that I know of; there were likely many more than that since the tiny clique of stalkers vowed to alert on every single post of mine trying to get a DU jury to hide ALL of them based on my sig line. In other words, they attempted, and probably are still attempting, to silence my voice and keep me from participating in discussion on DU based on their hatred of the progressive view on guns, and what they see as getting "revenge" on a poster whose views they despise.

But the vast majority of DU'ers reject both their attempts, their views, and their efforts to suppress dissent in favor of the pro-NRA propaganda line, and the sig line stands.


*( )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:14 PM

187. tax the ammo by GRAIN (the weight of the lead part that flies and hits things)!!! yup.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022351393#post177

here ya go- tax the GRAIN
There are 15.43236 grains in 1 gram - and on loaded boxes of ammuntion, the grain is for the bullet weight.

.22s are 30 grain 3 cents
.223s ~ 150 grain, 15 cents
.32 are ~85 grain, 8.5 cents
(maybe cut the cents by 50%?) edit:but not for .22s?

44 Magnum heavy weight hunting bullets - Is the 44 becoming ...
www.lasc.us/fryxell44overweight.htm
While a 300 grain bullet in either a .44 Magnum or a .45 Colt will shoot through a deer from pretty much any angle, many hunters dream of hunting larger game, ...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #187)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:19 PM

201. Nope

Silly to tax bullets based on weight. Why should a heavier bullet be taxed more?

Btw., .223 rifles typically use bullets that are 55 gr. not sure where you got 150 grains, that would be more common for rifles chambered in .27. .28 and 30 calibers.

.44 magnums and .45 colts are not really very good deer rounds and you would be unlikely to get through and through penetration on a deer when one of those rounds was fired from a handgun, unless it was a point blank range.

What exactly would be the rationale behind basing a tax on buller weight? Makes no sense what-so-ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #201)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:54 PM

203. yep.

it makes perfect sense.

you're right the 150gr was supposed to be .38 or .357 or .30-06.

even better, .223 are 55gr, round it off to a nickel.

3 cents for .22s
5 for .223s
11-14 for 9mm
20 cents for big ass hunting hunting rounds that cost $2 each.

that'd be more fair to .22 owners. like me.
except i'm not in CA, but i can still say it sounds fair.

the rationale being lighter ones cost less, are used more for targets, should be cheaper, there are hundreds of sizes, taxing them all the same rate make less sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #203)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 08:34 AM

209. still makes no sense

Your claim that lighter ones are used more for targets makes little sense, unless you are implying that heavier bullets are used more for violent acts, which is ridiculous.

Other than .22 rimfire cartridges (which should be excluded from any kind of an ammo tax) I doubt there is any kind of correlation between bullet weight and frequency of use. Competitive match shooters use a wide range of calibers, from .22 to .30, with a wide range of bullet weights, as well. Hunters use calibers ranging from .17 up to .50, again with a wide range of bullet weights, which has little to do with either the lethality of the weapon or the propensity for it being used for criminal purposes.

Doubt you will find many muggers using a 45/70 with a 405 gr. bullet, they will be more likely to use a .22 pistol with a 20 gr. bullet, so again, what exactly is the rationale behind taxing the ammunition used by a hunter at a 20 times higher rate?

And as long as we are at it, what's the rationale again for taxing ammo? Is the purpose designed to actually result in some tangible reduction in crime or is it intended to be strictly punitive in nature, designed to punish law abiding individuals who dare to own guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #209)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 12:50 PM

219. perhaps you aren't reading it correctly

i believe smaller one are the most common, all sizes are used, yes.

the heavier grains are ALWAYS more expensive- they use more raw material- not even an argument there...

How to Become a Marksman (Snipe) With a Pistol: 18 steps
www.wikihow.com › ... › Handguns Pistols and Revolvers
Lighter, high-velocity bullets are more accurate at common pistol ranges (out to 50+ yards). ... Smaller calibers are cheaper to shoot, which means you can practice more. ... When you start you may find yourself unable to hit a body-sized target ...

Competition Ammo!
If you shoot IDPA, IPSC, High-Power Rifle, Bullseye Pistol, Service Rifle, Small-Bore, or anyother match, you need special ammo to get the job done. It may be 124gr 9mm to knock down a steel plate where 115gr just won't cut it, or using 168gr FMJBT .308 to practice for a Service Rifle match because 168gr HPBT Matchking is too expensive.

Hunters use calibers ranging from .17 up to .50, again with a wide range of bullet weights, which has little to do with either the lethality of the weapon


the part in bold is ridiculous, of course heavier grains are nastier, what other point is there to use them?

what exactly is the rationale behind taxing the ammunition used by a hunter at a 20 times higher rate?

3 cents for .22, 30 cents for 300gr- that 10x, not 20x.

the idea being hunters, being portmen types, don't go blasting bullets all over the place, and often 1 round will do.

Is the purpose designed to actually result in some tangible reduction in crime


what do you not understand about the word YES???

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: CA bill #AB 187

SECTION 1. It is the intent of the Legislature that would enact
legislation to establish a tax on all ammunition sold in retail
stores and gun shows in the state and direct the revenue from the tax
to a high-crime prevention fund for crime prevention efforts in
high-crime areas of the state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #219)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 02:57 PM

225. Sorry but your post is full of misconceptions.

Where to begin?

First of all, other than .22 rimfire ammo, there is no corollary between the popularity and the size of bullet used. .22 rimfires are by far the most poplar caliber because of the low cost and the ease with which they can be shot but the popularity has nothing to do with the size of the bullet that they use.

Secondly, the cost of bullets is not based on weight, your claim that heavier bullets are always more expensive is just plain bunk. Most of the cost variance involved with different types of bullets is based on bullet construction. There are a wide variety of different types of bullet styles, from soft points, hollow points, round nose, boat-tailed, jacketed, bonded to solids. Weight plays almost no role in price, it's the construction that makes the difference. For example, take a particular caliber such as a 7mm-08., 139 gr. Remington or Winchester jacketed soft points are about half the cost of 120 gr. Barnes solids. Sorry, your claim that heavier bullets always cost more is just factually incorrect. Popularity of the caliber and the amount of ammo produced of a given type has much more bearing on cost than bullet weight.

"Heavier weights are nastier". Again, simply not true. I suggest you look at a ballistics table that includes ft. lbs of energy at various distances and compare a number of different calibers and bullet weights and the difference in energy at various ranges. For example, a 12 ga. using a 300 gr. slug has about 1,600 F/P of energy at 100 yards, where a 30-06 using a 150 gr. bullet has about 2,600 F/P of energy at the same distance, despite being half the weight. Weight coupled with velocity certainly enters into ballistic calculations but it's not a given that a heavier bullet will be deadlier than a lighter one.

As far as hunters only using one bullet, obviously you don't hunt. Hunters, at least the ones that know what they are doing, tend to do a lot of shooting, to become thoroughly familiar with their weapon, to keep their shooting skills honed and to make sure that their level of accuracy is sufficient so that they only need to use one bullet, when the time comes. Why would you want to make hunting ammunition so expensive, so as to discourage hunters from doing a lot of practice? Dumb idea that could have some unfortunate results for the quarry that they pursue.

Yes, I understand that the revenue from the proposed tax would be directed towards reducing crime, as could a tax increase on popsicles or CD's, both of which have about as much to do with increasing levels of violent crime as ammunition does (although if it's a rap CD, you might be able to make a reasonable argument for the culture that's promoted playing a role in increasing violence among urban youth).

What I was looking for was an example of how an ammunition tax or any of the other proposed measures would directly reduce the potential for crime. Do you seriously believe that a mugger is going to skip using a gun because the bullets cost an extra nickle apiece?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #225)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 03:14 PM

226. blah blah blah-^^^ no links, no truth...and a little...well, you decide...

the cost of bullets is not based on weight

http://www.hawkbullets.com/Pricelist.htm
it sure is there ^^^
.30 cal. (.308 dia.)

Round Tips
130 grains x .025 RT..........$35.50
130 grains x .035 RT..........$36.00 c3
150 grains x .025 RT..........$36.00
165 grains x .030 RT..........$37.00
165 grains x .035 RT..........$37.50
180 grains x .030 RT..........$37.50
180 grains x .035 RT..........$38.00
200 grains x .025 RT..........$37.50
200 grains x .030 RT..........$38.00
200 grains x .035 RT..........$39.00
220 grains x .035 RT..........$41.00
250 grains x .035 RT..........$44.50

how an ammunition tax or any of the other proposed measures would directly reduce the potential for crime.

http://www.shotspotter.com/

12/10/2012
Saginaw city leaders approve $63,150 as annual payment to maintain ShotSpotter contract
Read More

like that ^^^

I suggest you look at a ballistics table that includes ft. lbs of energy at various distances and compare a number of different calibers and bullet weights and the difference in energy at various ranges.

i'd rather cut my toenails, thanks.

.22 rimfires are by far the most poplar caliber because of the low cost and the ease with which they can be shot but the popularity has nothing to do with the size of the bullet that they use.

not a sentence...

Why would you want to make hunting ammunition so expensive,

a dime? really? maybe 2 dimes to shoot an elk?

(although if it's a rap CD, you might be able to make a reasonable argument for the culture that's promoted playing a role in increasing violence among urban youth).


now, THAT'S friggin' REGRESSIVE!!! and something else that begins with the letter 'R'. and i don't mean republican...

anybody?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #226)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 03:51 PM

230. LoL!

Did you read the prices on site you linked to (which are for bullets, Btw, not loaded cartridges), maybe you can explain why the .27 caliber 165 gr. round tips are $40 a box and the .30 caliber 180 gr. round tips are $38 dollars a box, if heavier bullets are always more expensive?

Cutting your toenails won't do much to educate you on your misconception regarding heavier bullets always being deadlier but if you want to continue your ignorance on the topic, it's your choice.

Again, your belief that hunters expend 1 or 2 bullets is unrealistic, it ignores the ammo that is used for target practice.

You don't think that there is an element of violence associated with rap culture? I haven't seen many articles about the bassoon player from the Boston Pops doing a drive by on a Rolls Royce driven by the first chair violinist from the NY Philharmonic, as occurred recently with a popular rap star in Miami but I'll readily admit that my exposure to rap is primarily limited to what I read in the headlines, so maybe it's a distorted view, overemphasizing the role that violence plays in that genre.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #230)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 04:47 PM

232. nope, not funny. but thanks for the idea, i'll include it in my email to the CA Senators

you get no credit, however.

so, to solve this 'dilemma' you are squawking about-

5-10% tax on the cost of the box itself...wait for it...AND 1/10th of a penny per grain of bullet!

i'm sure they'll LOVE IT, they're just going nuts with the new laws out there!

if you want to nitpick-
78% of heavier bullets are more expensive, and 89% are more deadly.

about hunters-
This report estimates that 21.8 million Americans hunted at least once over the past five years. Previous estimates have shown over 14 million youth and adults hunt each year, but not all hunters take to the field every year.

so what % of hunters blast away at the range? you have to post a link or something, not just make crap up.

any comment on the NRAs member list being 20% of the number of hunters?

I haven't seen many articles about the bassoon player from the Boston Pops doing a drive by on a Rolls Royce driven by the first chair violinist from the NY Philharmonic, as occurred recently with a popular rap star in Miami but I'll readily admit that my exposure to rap is primarily limited to what I read in the headlines,

you READ THAT IN THE HEADLINES??? was it fox or world net daily?

so maybe it's a distorted view, overemphasizing the role that violence plays in that genre.












Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #232)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 06:47 PM

234. Still a silly idea

Taxing ammunition based on bullet weight is still a silly idea, since there is no relationship between bullet weight and the propensity for misuse. It's a totally arbitrary metric.

I have no idea what percentage of hunters "blast away at the range" and I wouldn't trust a published statistic that indicated a certain percentage as being any way reliable. If I had to guess, I would say "a whole bunch". Not sure what report you were quoting from, so I can't comment on the validity.

Not a member of the NRA, although I was for a couple of years back in the 1980's. I'd bet that the reason I was a member would be true for a lot of other hunters. I belonged to a local sportsmen's club, primarily because it got me free access to a pretty nice target range, instead of having to pay for using one. Part of the membership fee automatically included a membership in the NRA, you didn't have choice in the matter. The reason they required that was primarily because the club got their liability insurance through the NRA at a discounted rate and I believe that it was a requirement to have the club members belong, in order to qualify. A few years later I bought my own property that provided me with a place to shoot, so I dropped my membership in the club and as a result also from the NRA. Never had any interest in rejoining.

So while I couldn't say for sure, it's possible that the statistic you mentioned about NRA membership may be accurate but it's also possible that a significant number of those members are only members of the NRA as the result of joining other organizations, where NRA membership is included.

Regarding the headlines, I don't watch Fox or any TV for that matter, I get my news primarily from DU. The headline I was referring to was from earlier today, here is the thread;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014383041

Feel free to allege racism, it's completely inaccurate. I dislike rap as a genre, I think it's shitty music and that opinion has nothing to do with race. If you look at my Ipod, you will see artists ranging from Louis Armstrong and Billy Holiday to Albert Collins to Stevie Wonder, all amazingly talented musicians and all associated with genre's that have deep roots within African-American culture. I think you are either naive or disingenuous if you fail to note the association between violence, particularly urban gang violence and rap music but if you want to try and spin someone acknowledging that connection as being racist, so be it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #234)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 07:17 PM

235. sure as hell better than 5 cents each

there is no relationship between bullet weight and the propensity for misuse.

but there is for weight/price, that's the whole point. the only point- higher price, more tax.

Part of the membership fee automatically included a membership in the NRA, you didn't have choice in the matter.

yeah, that seems to be pretty much their MO. gotta stop those a-holes.

Louis Armstrong and Billy Holiday to Albert Collins to Stevie Wonder


that we can agree on- i met albert collins once, sweet guy.

not all rap sucks- i like reggae but think dancehall sucks.

i just don't quite get what rick ross (who is an ex-prison guard) getting shot at has to do with causing violence, seems more caused by violence.

rap documents violence, doesn't cause it. the cause goes a lot deeper than that.

does this suck?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #235)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 08:42 PM

236. It's tolerable

Tolerable but not what I would generally classify as rap (in my limited exposure). Nice bass work and the singer had a good voice.

Not one reference to drugs, guns, sex, west coast, misogynistic references to women or racial slurs, are you sure you would classify that as rap?

"rap documents violence, doesn't cause it."

I'd have to disagree, I'd say that rap glorifies violence and due to the desire of young teens wanting to emulate the guys that they see as being rich, famous, covered with bling and with fancy rides, they also emulate the violence that is a common theme running through much of rap. I don't think there is any question that the lifestyle that it portrays and promotes contributes to a lot of the crime and violence that are seen in many urban areas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #236)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 09:25 PM

237. a short lesson in hip hop, from a punk farmer. don't be hatin' the game, yo

Arrested Development (group)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arrested Development is an American alternative hip hop group, founded by Speech and his then best friend Headliner (DJ) as a positive, Afrocentric alternative to the gangsta rap popular in the early 1990s.

***

emulate the violence that is a common theme running through much of rap

“If you believe that I'm a cop killer, you believe David Bowie is an astronaut.”
― Ice-T
http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/254803.Ice_T
“That became the signature Ice-T style - rhymes that were "topical" and "vividly optical." To me it was street-level journalism, real-life observations told in poetry. That's the vision I tried to bring to all my recordings.”
― Ice-T, Ice: A Memoir of Gangster Life and Redemption-from South Central to Hollywood

http://www.npr.org/2011/05/05/136022366/rapper-ice-t-reflects-on-life-in-new-memoir

you are only thinking of one type (of over-hyped) rap...

see, anyone can do it! --------^^^

out of, um, lots...(see list)

wiki-
The New York-based Native Tongues crew was a collective of like-minded hip hop artists who would help bring abstract and open-minded lyricism that addressed a range of topics, from spirituality and modern living to race, sex, and just having fun – to the mainstream. Together with the use of eclectic samples that would take on an increasingly jazzy sound, they would be pioneers of so-called conscious hip hop, alternative hip-hop, and jazz rap.
Fostered by Kool DJ Red Alert, the success of the Jungle Brothers would pave the way for De La Soul and A Tribe Called Quest; together, these three groups would form the core of the crew and continue the spirit of Afrika Bambaataa and the Zulu Nation.

not a crumb of crack and i'm feeling alright...

Alternative hip
Planets
Christian hip hop
Comedy hip hop
Conscious hip hop
Country-rap
Crunk
Crunkcore
Electro Freestyle rap
G-Funk
Gangsta rap
Grime
House music
Hardcore hip hop
Hip hop soul
Horrorcore
Hyphy
Instrumental hip hop
Jazz rap
Mafioso rap
Nerdcore hip hop
Political hip hop
Pop-rap
Rap rock
Snap music
Turntablism
Classic Rap
West Coast Hip Hop
East Coast Rap
Tech-Rap
Rasta Rap
Old Skool Rap
New Skool Rap
Gospel Rap
Rap Metal
Death Rap
Hardcore Rap
Revolutionary
Dirty south
Religious Rap
Grindcore Rap
Hypher
And Many More…

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #237)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 09:54 PM

239. Thanks but no thanks.

It may be only one type of over hyped rap but it's the crap that I hear coming out of the speakers of the car that pulls up next to me at the light, that is so loud it makes my car shake and it's also the type that makes the headlines (see earlier thread).

I think I'll stick with Louis, Billy & Stevie.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #236)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 09:37 PM

238. thanks for checking that out, by the way, and you'll like this one

the french billie holiday-

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #238)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 09:58 PM

240. Nice!

Very nice, definitely reminiscent of Billy Holiday during her younger years, tres bien!

Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #209)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 01:08 PM

221. here is a visual aid

big ass bullets- make sure you click the pic, i'm sure it will make you smile.

so 5 cents each sounds more fair than by weight?

howz about 3 cents for #1 and 20 cents for #50, from the top row there?

and wtf is #3, a caseless round? what shoots those?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:46 PM

195. Sounds good, though I think item 7 is too broad to be enforceable

"Prohibit the loaning or sale of a firearm between people who know each other personally"

What's 'knowing someone personally'? That one sounds way too vague to be constitutional, and like something prosecutors could selectively use to bully people they don't like and for high profile convictions, similar to Aaron Schwartz. And how would such a law prevent gun violence anyway? How about not letting people sell or loan guns to people who haven't passed a background check to buy a gun?

I think the rest of your list are all great ideas, especially the 5 cents a bullet tax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ShadowLiberal (Reply #195)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:57 PM

197. i think that's supposed to clean up unregistered guns

or totally stop straw purchases, or both?

it wouldn't stop criminal to criminal sales, but non-criminals would i think just have to do it thru a store?

i'm guessing...

check down thread- tax the bullets by grain, even more fair.

and the tax goes to mental health and high crime ares, so...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #197)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 05:14 AM

205. So... if I go to the range with my non-shooting buddy, and we both use my gun, I go to jail?

I'm a criminal if I let him fire off a couple shots at a piece of cardboard and then am immediately handed my gun back? That's kind of insane if so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sirveri (Reply #205)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 12:33 PM

217. i don't think so

Gun Loans (Block): This legislative action prevents unregulated gun loans, with exceptions, including hunting. To limit legal accessibility of weapons to prohibited persons or persons without a background check.
http://sd06.senate.ca.gov/news/2013-02-07-proposals-curb-gun-violence

i think they mean letting someone else take your gun home with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 08:06 AM

208. Take steps to phase out legal possession of assault weapons that were purchased before California

 

Outlawed their sale?

Does that mean what I think it means?


Otherwise, there are lots of positives there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xoom (Reply #208)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 10:12 AM

210. it is kinda vague

In California, Democrats also proposed strengthening the state’s assault-weapon ban by further limiting who can get a permit; requiring safe storage of weapons in homes where anyone prohibited from possessing a gun lives; ending a provision that allows possession of assault weapons bought before the ban; and extending waiting periods to purchase a firearm.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-29/california-lawmakers-propose-per-bullet-tax-to-curb-gun-violence.html

it doesn't say which ban or what type of weapon.

they should put all the semi-auto rifles that are out there on the NFA, instead of taking them away? is that what you mean?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 10:22 AM

211. more articles and another 80s hardcore vid

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/State-lawmakers-propose-tough-gun-laws-4261890.php

The magnitude of restrictions introduced by Democrats is greater than gun-rights advocates say they have ever seen at one time and puts the debate in California in the forefront, even as Congress considers a number of gun laws.

-skip-

'Off the charts'

Gun-rights advocates said the proposals are either unconstitutional or unnecessary and that there was no comparison to any past legislative session in their magnitude.

"This is off the charts, and none of these laws that are being proposed will prevent crime or solve crime," said Sam Paredes, executive director of the Gun Owners of California. He said lawmakers should instead find ways to better fund courts and the Department of Justice to ensure that guns do not get into the hands of the mentally ill.


***

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/08/1561281/california-democrats-propose-strictest-gun-regulations-in-the-nation/?mobile=nc

i don't see the thing about phasing out old assault weapons ^^^ there...
i'll be back later, kinda busy.

(Impatient) Youth- Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition

(I) Y version:
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition
God is on our side
Battling over the book, slaughtering over the psalms
Onward Christian soldier with your sword and cross
Putting the fear of god into heathen flesh
The blood easily washed off of the Christian hand
Cleansed in the river of lies promise of salvation
From the mouth of madmen’s interpretations
Don’t forget the golden rule
The man with the gold is making the rules

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition
God is on our side

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 11:53 AM

212. factastic!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 05:17 PM

242. Santa Clara County announces gun buy back event - Federal gun law proposals already in place in Cali

Updated: 02/13/2013 12:08:09 PM PST
http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_22582477/santa-clara-county-announces-gun-buy-back-event?source=rss
Santa Clara County officials on Wednesday announced the county will host an anonymous gun buyback program for the public to voluntarily turn in firearms for cash on March 2.
The event -- funded with $160,000 from the county budget, including $10,000 from the District Attorney's office -- will be held at the County Fairgrounds, where organizers hope to collect handguns, shotguns, rifles and assault weapons.
The program is an initiative of Ken Yeager, president of the county board of supervisors, in partnership with Sheriff Laurie Smith and District Attorney Jeff Rosen.
"An anonymous buyback program will allow anyone to turn in a firearm with no questions asked, getting unwanted, potentially dangerous weapons out of homes,'' Yeager said at a mid-morning news conference.
"Even a gun that is never used, left dusty in the back of a closet, could accidentally fall into the hands of a child or be stolen by those intent on using that gun for crime,'' he said.
Yeager said he believes the event could be "the biggest buyback event in the Bay Area.''
The county will offer $100 for hand guns, shotguns, and rifles and $200 for assault weapons.
The buyback follows others held recently in San Francisco, Oakland and Marin County. So many firearms were traded in for cash last month in Marin County that official ran out of money and handed out vouchers instead. More than 800 guns were collected that one day.

***

http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_22463799/federal-gun-law-proposals-already-place-california?source=rss

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57568069/tense-moments-as-california-agents-confiscate-illegal-guns/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread