News

Back to News

August 20, 2012

Read My Lips… No New Ammunition Taxes!


Here we go again. The flagship of the mainstream news media is digging up old ideas to punish law-abiding gun owners.

A recent article in the The New York Times recirculates a nearly 20-year old idea for mandating exorbitant taxes on ammunition.

The premise is that taxing ammunition at an extremely high rate would reduce firearm-related violence.

Once again, however, reality must intrude. Raising taxes on ammunition would not reduce firearm violence, but it would hurt and potentially close thousands of businesses ranging from gun shops to firing ranges and ammunition manufacturers.

Attacking the firearms and ammunition industry — one of the few bright spots in the otherwise anemic economy, as this report shows — is not only wrong-headed but counterproductive. The proposed tax would threaten thousands of jobs from every level of the industry, from local retailers to manufacturers.

Also, this tax would have an adverse effect on wildlife conservation funding. If hunters cannot afford ammunition then there is no need for hunting licenses, which are the primary source for conservation funding. Critics so often forget that hunters are the greatest champions of wildlife conservation. But not just hunters would be adversely impacted. Shooters, who buy more ammunition would be hit even harder by the price increases, drive them off the firing line leading to shooting ranges shuttering. The money for conservation that goes into the Pittman Robertson Trust Fund from the sale of ammunition to both hunters and shooters would also decline as sales drop due to price increases to cover the tax.

Furthermore, taxing ammunition to the point where the average person cannot exercise a fundamental right is an unconstitutional restriction.

Knowing that the New York Times is dredging up draconian 20-year-old concepts to restrict our rights, you have to ask yourself, “Where does my elected official stand on this?

Where do you stand? Who will you #gunvote for?