Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Tax Us

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    ...., Pennsylvania
    Posts
    821
    Rep Power
    21474853

    Default Re: Tax Us

    It may not pass congress, but I'm more worried about EPA regulations that can be handed down with little to no oversight. Sure congress can pass legislation to overturn EPA regulations, but what's the chance of that with this administration? If EPA decides to regulate ammo as a hazard who knows how much damage they can do.
    “A Republic, if you can keep it.” - Benjamin Franklin

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Near Indiana, Pennsylvania
    (Indiana County)
    Posts
    6,181
    Rep Power
    21474858

    Default Re: Tax Us

    Quote Originally Posted by truecrimson View Post
    The term for that is poll tax.

    The courts have already ruled on charging people to excercise their rights.
    SBR=$200 tax.
    I suppose a SBR is not covered under the 2nd?

    See where I'm going here?

    Don't be so sure of yourself when it comes to taxing rights.
    The left does not consider it your right to own a firearm and all it would take is a sympathetic SCOTUS to agree, and with the ages of the current court, Obama will likely get to pick a couple more.

    This was a point many tried to impress on others during the election to no avail.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Next to the Corn
    Posts
    3,833
    Rep Power
    21474853

    Default Re: Tax Us

    The EPA could screw every gun owner with higher ammo prices by just clamping down or trying to ban lead in ammo without even adding extra tax. The price of ammo would end up increasing by not being able to use lead. Frangible and non lead metal bullets as of now are a lot more money than lead bullets whether cast, plated or jacketed. They also cannot be easily melted and recast like lead bullets can.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Leb-A-non, Pennsylvania
    (Lebanon County)
    Age
    53
    Posts
    1,984
    Rep Power
    5048807

    Default Re: Tax Us

    Quote Originally Posted by 39flathead View Post
    SBR=$200 tax.
    I suppose a SBR is not covered under the 2nd?

    See where I'm going here?

    Don't be so sure of yourself when it comes to taxing rights.
    The left does not consider it your right to own a firearm and all it would take is a sympathetic SCOTUS to agree, and with the ages of the current court, Obama will likely get to pick a couple more.

    This was a point many tried to impress on others during the election to no avail.
    If Miller had only shown up, how things could have been different......................................... .......

    As no one has attempted to take such a case through the court system we don't have an official answer yet. But it has been suggested that such a case could be filed in the event of an AWB passing.

    So right now, no, an SBR is not covered, under the system we have in place right now. Just like a license/permit system is not an infringement or questionning if open carry is (sort of)unregulated, and an incomplete database is also not a registry.

    That doesn't make it right, but until someone steps up to the plate that is what we have.
    If you don't know who your state legislators are go here:
    http://www.legis.state.pa.us/index.cfm
    put your zip plus 4 in the box in the upper right hand corner.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Bucks Cty, Pennsylvania
    (Bucks County)
    Age
    70
    Posts
    6,016
    Rep Power
    21474860

    Default Re: Tax Us

    They will try anything they can think of. Their plan is to overwhelm us by attacking on multiple fronts and exhausting our money supply. They have no limits.
    Its easier to fool people than to convince them they've been fooled....Mark Twain

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Mohnton, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    537
    Rep Power
    1827784

    Default Re: Tax Us

    I see where this is going. Make ammo prohibitively expensive. Pass a new law requiring training to be able to own firearms. Ammo too expensive= less people willing to make the training requirement.
    Same along the lines of limiting magazines to ten rounds. I bet there is a large percentage of people out there who would never even consider buying an AR or AK if mags were limited to ten rounds. Eventually the desire for said weapons will die out. My opinion is that most of this legislation is designed to destroy our country's "gun culture"

    Interesting how this all went from keeping people like Adam lanza from having acess to guns, to limiting everyone's access to guns. Didn't take long for their true agenda to rear it's ugly head.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •