Obama's Ammunition Tax
I tried to buy some ammo for one of my handguns the other day so I could participate in some healthy venting of frustration. When I got to Wally World they were completely out of my caliber of ammo. At first I chalked it up to the “Wally World never has what I need when I need it” phenomenon that has caused me to try and shop elsewhere whenever I can. I made an off-hand comment about my opinion of this to the sporting goods clerk who was “helping” me. He then proceeded to tell me that it was not their fault, but that the manufacturers couldn’t keep up with demand. “People are buying ammo faster than they can make it” he said.
“Why?” I asked.
“You haven’t heard that Obama is going to raise the price of ammo 500%?” he asked.
OK… that makes sense… The American way of life (follow the pack) is responsible. After a little research, I found out that the NRA has been (or was) running an ad campaign to inform everyone that Obama was going to raise the ammo tax by 500%. That’s a far cry from the PRICE of ammo by 500%. I really don’t think he has that much control. If he can’t get a handful of Republican congress people to vote for his stimulus package, how is he going to get all of the manufacturers of ammunition to raise the MSRP of their product? I can see the tax increase, but thinking he can pull off a price increase is just ignorant.
The NRA’s ad campaign is based on the former Senator’s voting record in congress and statements he has made in the past. It is not based of any legislation that is currently before congress. If congress isn’t voting on it, it can’t happen. So apparently I can’t buy ammo because of rumors and mass hysteria. Thanks, America! Now I can't blow off some steam in a healthy manner and reinvigorate the economy at the same time.
The mass hysteria has led to a lot of ignorant opinions. One of them is that Obama is going to take all of our ammunition. I remember when Clinton was elected. My uncle, in reaction to the mass hysteria of the time, said that he was going to bury his guns in a waterproof bucket so “they” couldn’t find his guns when “they” came to take them from him. I suppose this is the same sort of thing.
I read someone’s opinion ( #1, #2) that the constitution says we can own weapons, but that we do not necessarily have to right to use them. The Supreme Court has clearly shown that this is not the case in Heller V. DC.
When Heller V. DC was before the courts, I did a little research and found out that the 2nd congress of the United States passed a law requiring every American man between the ages of 18 and 45 to have in his possession at least twenty-four rounds of pre-made ammo (muskets were different than modern rifles- you could have the various parts of the ammo, or assemble them into pre-made rounds for quicker use) and another at least twenty rounds of ammo that were not pre-made. So essentially, the United States Congress, less than five years after adopting the Constitution, made it a law that essentially every able-bodied American Male was REQUIRED to own at least 44 rounds of ammunition (not to mention a rifle and all of the items and training needed to use a rifle as intended by its manufacturers). In my humble (but correct) opinion, the framers of the constitution said that we have the right to keep AND bear arms. Then the congress clarified what that meant. So if Wally World doesn’t hurry up and get the ammo I need, I think I might file a constitutional negligence suit against them… you think that’d work?
I don’t know whether Obama will try to limit our access to firearms or ammunition. He said in his election propaganda that he "respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms", but only the future will tell.
It is my opinion that this will hopefully blow over like it has in the past...?
Quickly!
I am not sure that people are paranoid (like your uncle burying guns) or that a herd mentality is at work here. I think that most people watch what a politician does and not what he says. There have been too many campaign lies and promises that went by without being delivered on over the years (on both sides). That being the case, Obama's record on the gun issue is far from helpful to those who own firearms.
ReplyDeleteOver the years, anti-gun politicians from both parties have tried a wide variety of anti-gun schemes. These have included everything from attempts at an outright ban, to micro-stamping (that has been proven not to work), to the current flavor of the day: the "back door ban". You cannot ban guns, so let's tax them so they are not affordable, you cannot ban ammunition, so lets call the shells "cop killers" and ban their sale. Yes, that ought to do it. That ought to strike a cord with the public. I have heard the argument many times that politicians are trying to protect law enforcement. Bogus aruguments all. By the way, if they really wanted to protect police officers they would pass a bill on the federal level requiring that all law enforcement officers receive the latest and best training and equipment each year (when I started in law enforcement in 1999 I was issued a revolver, are you kidding? Even in 1999 I was outgunned). But alas, that is not the real issue.
It is reasonable for people to expect that with a democratic controlled house and senate, and the White House occupied by a anti-gun democrat, there will likely be heavy regulation. Once again, watch what people do not what they say. The current attorney general may have been told by Pelosi that he was out of school for announcing a proposed assault weapon ban but people in America are not easily fooled. This admistration is less than two months old and there has already been that type of discussion? They are not wasting any time. My own opinion is that with the economy as bad as it is, and the stimulus package as unpopular as it is, populist sentiment is low enough. The current administration does not want to make it worse right now. In Pelosi's words "we will address the gun issue when the time is ripe". Worse yet, legislation like the proposed HR45 has already been introduced. Bobby Rush (D-IL) did that on the very first day of the session. Obama wasn't even in the White House yet. What are people supposed to think? This after all his campaign promises to leave guns alone.
I think it is very reasonable for people to believe the price will rise (in part due to demand of course and in part to excessive taxation or bans). I think people are buying not so much in fear of a ban as much as they are buying in fear of massive price increases due to excessive taxation.
Lastly, if we really understood the nature of this issue not one of us would care a bit about guns one way or the other. This is not a gun issue but one of human behavior. As the old saying goes, people kill people, guns don't kill people"
The problem is that human behavior is too difficult to control, so we attempt the easier but flawed solution of attempting to control the object. The firearm.
One may as well ban cars and farm equipment. They kill and injure many many more people in this country each year than the use of guns.
Mike Montague
I agree with Mike on most everything. One consideration in this whole gun ban/control is not ever brought up however. Who are "they" that will actually be picking up guns from the public.
ReplyDeleteI am in the Army and most everyone I know owns at least one or two guns. If the military were called in to assist in this matter there would be such an internal struggle with each soldier that I believe commands would collapse.
On one hand the current administration is our boss and we've sworn allegience. On the other we have sworn to up-hold the constitution. Would the personal conflict with each soldier cause him to view a government intervention with the 2nd ammendment as an attack from "enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC?"
I am unsure of the oath law enforcement officers recieve or how they would react, but I bet the split and breakdown would be similar. Would you have an entire police force begin to crack because of personal politics and moral debate?
You could go on and on through all of the government agencies. Some fail to understand that we government employees are people too, we have families, homes, friends, and communities. We are not drones, and I believe if a total attack on the 2nd ammendment would result in very very severe consequences and un-needed eventual violence.
But this is just one soldier's opinion, although it seems to echo through every military post and armory that I have ever visited.
I just called 4 local area Walmarts, three of them had the Winchester 150 grain 30-06 ammo my Browning likes, and one was out. It was all the same price that I paid last year, and that was about the same price I paid the year before, with just a bit of inflation. So, the price is relatively unchanged, and it is available for the most part... If it is not available, it is probably because the NRA paranoia brainwashing that seems rampant whenever a Democrat is in office. I live in California, with very strict gun laws, and it sucks. But, I'd rather have a president who is trying to fix our screwed up economy, even if his gun views are different than mine....I'm not paranoid enough to think "they're coming to take our guns"
ReplyDeletethey took all the guns in new orleans and the police officers went right along with it. i'm in the national guard and if we get the call for something similar to that abortion of the constitution, i'm setting up shop in my front yard and they can drive their bradleys right up. they better have some medics on standby. call me that "crazy guy down the road" but i probably bought your ammo. you should have bought to ammo ahead of time so you can shoot when you want.
ReplyDeleteI'm a Democrat. I voted for Obama. I don't see anything with limiting certain ammo and firearms. I'll even go as far as saying that I think people should be licensed before they are allowed to buy a firearm. We require it with driving and let's be honest, there are more deaths associated to driving then guns.
ReplyDeleteAnd for the record: I'm also a gun owner (9mm semi and bolt action rifle). I recieved firearm saftey and training in high school (JROTC). #1 Rule: Always treat a weapon as if it's loaded. #2 Always point the weapon in a safe direction (cause it might be loaded). #3 Always verify that there is no ammo in the weapon (cause it could be loaded).
I was at a gun show a few weeks back and this retard (I don't mean to disrespect mentally challanged people but he was a retard) was just waving this gun around like he was directing traffic!!! WTF man...honestly, we are surronded by guns and people who have guns and this guy is breaking the most important rule!!! Yes the gun was tied open with one of those red tie wraps but if my CSM had been there the guy would have gotten a saftey course right there (No I didn't say anything to the guy...I mean he had a gun in his hand...Rule #4 Never argue with a guy with a gun (it's probably loaded)...
Interesting reading, and i definately agree with some forementioned facts and opinions. the thought of any proposed molestation of our second ammendment sickens, but does not suprise me at all! it seems to be common place in this day and age. laws changing, ammendments to ammendments and so on and so forth, there seems no end to it. and so wether there eventually is a rediculous tax placed on ammunition, or not i sure do think that it's a really good idea to beef up the inventory!!!! after all it sure cant hurt to do so.
ReplyDeletei also went to wally world, and had a similar conversation with a clerk there. the poor woman said she had been back and forth to the ammo case all day long, every day, for the last six weeks! i felt a bit bad as she made her way back to the case to fetch my requested ammunition, not bad enough not to ask her though!
It's amazing to me how people read only the parts of laws that they want and ignore every thing else. I followed the "the law" link above and before you start jumping out there and saying that it's the law for man to have ammunition on hand you might start by reading sections 1 through 7 of that same law where section 1 starts by saying "Whenever the United States be invaded or be in imminent danger of invasion from any FOREIGN NATION OR INDIAN TRIBE(emphasis is mine) it shall be lawful for the President to to call forth the militia in the state or states convenient to the danger"
ReplyDeleteSection 2 reads: "Be it further enacted that when the laws of the United States BE OPPOSED OR THE EXECUTION THEREOF BE OBSTRUCTED" (emphasis theirs) etc, etc, Read it for yourselves and while your at it continue reading the rest of the first seven section of "the law". The go out and find the actual definition of a "well regulated militia". It's defined and the STATE ARMY AND NAVY national guard, not these want to be's who go out with intent to do just the opposite of the specifications and intent of "the law".
To the previous Anonymous Commentor: Allow me to redirect your own words back at you. It's amazing to ME how some people read only the parts of laws that they want and ignore every thing else. If you had really read the page linked to in the above post, you would have read the following: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside" (and it goes on to include the ammunition requirements of each individual member of the militia) I don't know how much clearer the definition of 'militia' could be. And where you quote section 1 of the aforementioned law, you did quote it correctly. The president did have the power to call forth the militia whenever the US was invaded, etc. You are absolutely right! And yes, whenever the laws were obstructed, the president had the lawful power to call forth the militia. Yes sir (madame) you are absolutely correct! I think you are misreading, however because it says the President has the power to CALL FORTH, not create, form, or cause to become... The militia was still in existence, even if not in a state of called-forth-ness. Also, you will see (if you read what I posted) that I was referencing this document from a historical perspective. I did not say it IS the law for every man to have X amount of ammunition on hand, as you state above: I was using this as a rebuttal to the other linked page in my post wherein someone put forth the opinion that Americans do not necessarily have the right to own ammunition. If you had read the entire document, you would have seen all of this. I believe that this illustrates the need for increasing literacy education in our schools. If you sir (madame) were truly literate, you would be able to understand the meaning of the printed word, and not just get part of the meaning. OR is this a matter of opinionated rage causing blindness and inability to think clearly. I await your reply...
ReplyDeleteBaledochenz: You are correct in one aspect about my comments above. I did not scroll down far enough to see the second section entitled "Providing Federal Standards for the Organization of the Malitia". My point is even more supported by this section since it gives VERY SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS AS TO HOW A MALITIA WILL BE SET UP AND ORGANIZED, who will be in command and a complete chain of command from the NCOs all the way up to the way up to AND INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!! These jumped up "Private Malitas" at no point meet these requirements and are actually, being VERY generous, pivate gun clubs that have NO LEGAL STANDING under the constitution OR this law your so proud of!
ReplyDeleteI say again -- you only read what you want to read and ignore the rest.
Now that we've got that out of the way lets get to the 500% tax that started your rant.
There is NO BILL OR PROPOSAL at any point stating that ANYONE wants to tax ammunition as a federal law. If you had done you research you would have found that the NRA started this rumor using a series of statements he made in 1999 as a state senator from Chicago and was concerned about the child on child murder rates in the Chicago area. (An epidemic that has only increased with time!) There were, in fact, many proposals (all of them hated by the gun lobby). These were only state bills and not federal law.
In fact, President Obama has actually done well by gun owners. Until this year guns of any kind were prohibited in national parks. Through President Obama's efforts you may now LEGALLY take your private firearms into National Parks.
Let me end this by stating that ill considered, poorly researched rants like this one, in my humble opinion, at best constitutes inciting sedition and rebellion as Mr. Barney Frank said "It is a testimony to the first ammendment that this kind of vile contemptable nonsense is so freely propagated"
Anonymous: Let me start by saying: "DID YOU EVEN READ MY BLOG POST????"
ReplyDeleteHere are my thoughts:
1) No one mentioned private "militias", which by the way are not militias.
2)Did you even read my blog post?
3)You accuse me of reading parts and ignoring the rest, while you apparently don't read and ignore the rest.
4) Did you even read this blog post?
5)Your 5th paragraph says almost exaclty what I said in my blog post, so I don't understand why you are arguing the point.
6) Did you even read my blog post?
7)Have you ever heard the term "tongue in cheek"?
8) This was a very well researched opinion, in that it is my opinion, and I don't have to back up MY opinion with any research. You will find that all of the historical facts, if you actually read them and take the time to understand what you are reading, are accurate.
9)You sound like you have issues with anger, extremism and literacy.
10) DID YOU read this blog post that you are ignorantly ranting about. I keep asking that because you apparently did not, and you sound like an idiot for some of the comments you have made and some of the arguments you have so poorly used. Notice, I didn't say you are an idiot, only that you sound like one. You would sound a lot less like an idiot if you actually read what you are trying to argue. You would probably do the world a lot more good if you did the same!
Wow!! A blog, An opinion, An understanding, Read, write, philosophy, literates debate like two sociologist arguing over a half filled cup or half empty cup!!!! I just want some coffee, hot!!! Hell even a cigarette!! Next you know, we learn typing skills, one on one with English lessons to follow!!! These are opinions not arguments!!! Live in the past and die with the past!!! Welcome to 09 October 2009... As for legislation would be concerned a little 1. Look at the bills introduced on the Gun control or ban of certain High Capacity Mags...There has been legislation produced and several are still in working condition Congress 110th might allow on the floor
ReplyDeleteH.R. 5782: Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2008
H.R. 5266: National Crime Gun Identification Act
S. 3207: Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2008
S. 2605: A bill to require certain semiautomatic pistols manufactured, imported, or sold by...
S. 2237: Crime Control and Prevention Act of 2007
H.R. 6691: Second Amendment Enforcement Act
S. 2577: Gun Show Background Check Act of 2008
H.R. 1859: Anti-Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act of 2007
S. 1331: Long-Range Sniper Rifle Safety Act of 2007
H.R. 2666: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2007
S. 1001: A bill to restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia
H.R. 861: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2007
Assault weapons
H.R. 96: Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2007
H.R. 1022: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007
And Wow this is only a few!!! After revision and submission to some type of floor committee or a subcommittee!! You think there was no legislation brought to the floor of our house of representatives!!!!
I have to wonder, why did they give you a revolver??!!