Mock

Since the government taxes every goddamned thing, ever wonder why ammo isn't taxed like cigs or sugary drinks?

The right to possess ammo ain't addressed in the 2^nd Amendment.

Ammo kills people . . .

(10-31-2016, 01:50 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ]Since the government taxes every goddamned thing, ever wonder why ammo isn't taxed like cigs or sugary drinks?

The right to possess ammo ain't addressed in the 2^nd Amendment.

Ammo kills people . . .

I hadn't thought about it before, Tiki, but it's a good question.

I just looked it up and the government is collecting a lot of revenue from a manufacturer excise tax though.

Snip:
The Treasury’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau collects a 10 percent tax on ammo sales and a roughly 10 percent tax on gun sales. In both cases, the government taxes the manufacturers, not the retailers. Data provided to Vocativ from the agency shows how the surge in weapons-buying during the Obama administration has generated unprecedented levels of revenue for federal coffers. The money is later earmarked for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Federal taxes on guns and ammo reached a high of $875 million in 2013, the year following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings. The deadly spree, which left 27 dead, touched off a wave of panic about the possiblity of tighter gun-control laws. Ammo tax receipts alone for that year, roughly $255 million, were nearly double the 1991 tax receipts for handguns, long guns and ammo combined.

http://www.vocativ.com/usa/guns/the-gove...mmo-sales/

Did the post office by a bunch of ammo or was that the Social security administration.

I bet FU has a hundred.

(10-31-2016, 02:01 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]I hadn't thought about it before, Tiki, but it's a good question.

Yeah . . . we "gun nuts" and 2^nd Amendment supporters are just plain ol' child killers and unreasonable, racist thugs!

Well, I never characterized gun owners in that way, Tiki.............though some defensive gun enthusiasts have done a good job inadvertently painting themselves in that light, which usually makes for some solid mock-worthy fun.

It was a statement to invoke a chuckle . . . nothing more.

And definitely NOT intended for MS or BBH!

(10-31-2016, 02:29 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ]It was a statement to invoke a chuckle . . . nothing more.

I know. I kinda like being your straight woman (when it comes to bantering, I mean).

Yes, guns kill people, thank God.

I'd empty my cylinder down that barrel.

(carried over from IN THE LINE OF FIRE - OFFICER DOWN thread for response)

(11-02-2016, 01:25 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-02-2016, 12:31 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]This father was shot and killed in California by a legal and trained firearms owner -- another cop.

The detective who fired the fatal bullet has not been named, but authorities said he was extremely upset following the incident (well, no shit).

My God!

These kinds of shootings don't surprise me anymore. :(

Remember the video of all the off-duty officers accidentally shooting themselves and others upthread. And, the Georgia chief who 'accidentally' shot his wife, TWICE, in the back while she was sleeping? And, the several people shot to death during gun safety training classes this year alone? And, the two police officers (that we know of) this year who shot themselves to death after staging their suicides as on-the-job murders?

I just read about a North Carolina deputy named Misty Flowers. She was showing off her gun at a Halloween Party and 'accidentally' shot her 11-year-old daughter in the abdomen. Someone called 911 from the house and said someone else was 'playing with a gun' when it went off, but claimed not to know who fired the shot. The girl was seriously injured, but is expected to recover, thankfully.


^ Flowers was fired for negligently handling her firearm and not securing/storing it off duty (a department policy) - good to see. A criminal negligence investigation is also underway.

I don't care if law-abiding, stable people own and carry guns legally. But, sometimes those who are among the best trained gun owners are among the least responsible, sadly.

Ref: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/misty-flower...een-party/

A trained dumbshit is still a dumbshit.

And with all of the PSAs for drunk and distracted driving . . .

Misty Flowers!

(11-03-2016, 05:26 PM)BigMark Wrote: [ -> ]Misty Flowers!

Before she got pregnant and decided to pursue a career in law enforcement, she changed her name to Misty Flowers to help boost her career as an Asian girl-on-girl porn star and never changed it back.

Her birth name was Neg Lee Gent-Ho.

Not really, but Misty Flowers would be a good name for a porn star, or a feminine hygiene spray.

Her co star was Likka Lotta Poon.

sally was once a porn star named Crab Rank Poon.

California -- New Gun/Ammo Laws

California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 63, putting more rules and regulations on firearms and ammunition.

So what’s next now that it passed? “This is not gonna stop terrorists or violent crime from happening,” said gun store owner Josh Deaser.

He has been in the gun industry for decades; he calls Tuesday’s passing of Prop. 63 a blow to law-abiding citizens. “It’s gonna be a big change,” Deaser said.

Right now Deaser doesn’t have to ID clients who want to buy ammunition, only if they’re buying a firearm.

Here’s the breakdown of how Prop 63 will change the gun industry in the state:

-By July, it will be illegal for anyone to own a magazine that holds more than ten rounds.

-By January 2018, gun owners will need to have a special permit issued by the Department of Justice in order to buy ammunition.

-By January of 2019, gun shops will be required to do a background check on a client before selling them ammo.

“We anticipate ammunition sales will be very heavy (before the new laws go into effect),” said Bob Templeton, who owns the Crossroads of the West gun show happening in Sacramento over the weekend.

He says ammo dealers in California are in limbo since Prop 63 passed, and are now waiting for direction from the Department of Justice on how to enforce the new restriction.

Under Prop. 63, ammunition dealers will have to report the loss or theft of ammo within 48 hours; dealers and owners must report the loss of firearm within five days, or they will face an infraction.

Story: http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2016/11/1...concerned/
----------------------------------

I voted against the proposition, only because I wasn't convinced that requiring people to have a permit and background check for ammunition would solve any gun violence or child safety issues.

But, I do like the 10-round cartridge max and the gun loss/theft reporting aspects of the law.

Looks like ammo sales in AZ & NV will rise in the near future.

(11-19-2016, 08:23 AM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]Looks like ammo sales in AZ & NV will rise in the near future.

Could be, F.U.

But, I think buying ammo (as opposed to guns) across state lines might be less convenient than just getting the permit, especially if the background checks are 'instant' by that time. If the would-be buyers can't pass a background check, then making it harder for them to get ammo, by driving them to another state, is fine by me.

To me, these new laws really hurt the gun shop owners more than they hurt or help anyone else though. Those business owners will be subject to more permit costs and administrative costs to conduct the same transactions with the same customer base. Maybe they'll raise their prices to absorb some/all of that? If so, so long as the price increase is less than it would cost ammo purchasers to facilitate an interstate purchase, the gun shops probably won't be driven out of business.

I'm going through the same thing with sweeping labor laws/regulations upping my cost of business every year. Unfortunately, my customer base is largely fixed-income, so I can't raise my prices to absorb much of the cost increase like restaurants and possibly gun shop owners can.

Here's a little more about the new CA laws: http://smartgunlaws.org/ammunition-regul...alifornia/

I am not seeing anything about a permit to purchase ammo in that link, HotD. I did read that a seller will have to be licensed dealer and will have to keep a logbook of ammo sales, with the exception of ammo sold at a shooting range [as long as that ammo does not leave that facility].

I also read that any buyer will have to go through a licensed seller and will have to undergo a background check to verify that the person receiving the ammunition is legally eligible.

I did smirk at the first sentence in {5} . Unless I am reading it wrong, it is saying handgun ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor will be banned. It is stopping the manufacture, importation, sale, offer for sale, known possession or transportation. I smirked because the singled out handgun ammo and forgot all about the more common rifle ammo for rifles like the evil AR15.

I also found it strange that they singled out the specialty ammo know as fletched dart. I know of one specialty ammo [Dragons Breath http://www.americanspecialtyammo.com/dra...reath.html ] that I would think would be much higher on their radar than darts.

Sometimes I think the people that write these laws know little about modern firearms and ammo.


ETA, Just noticed that Dragons Breath is already banned from sale in CA. Guess I was wrong, they already jumped on that one .