Firearms Have Amazing Powers

Did you know that firearms can act on their own?

“It is very important to us to tax guns because we know that guns are the sources of the incredible violence we have in our neighborhoods,” Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle told a news conference. She said 29 percent of guns used in crimes in Chicago were purchased legally in suburban Cook County. (emphasis mine- BS)

I didn’t know that the guns are the source of the problem; silly me thought that people were.

Under the plan, the county would impose a $25 tax on the purchase of firearms. The tax is expected to raise $600,000 in revenue in 2013. Preckwinkle abandoned a proposed tax of 5 cents a bullet because the tax in some cases would have exceeded the price of ammunition.

If approved by the board, the nation’s third most populous county with nearly 5.2 million residents could be the first major U.S. metropolitan area to impose a tax as a form of gun control, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

There have been 440 murders in Chicago so far this year, surpassing last year’s total of 435 and 22.2 percent more than in the same period a year ago, according to Chicago police.

Hey Chicago, People wear clothes to commit crimes (even those unarmed crimes) so why don’t you impose a ‘violence tax’ on sneakers, pants, shirts -can’t tax hoodies that would be racist, right?

Preckwinkle proposed dedicating $2 million to a violence prevention program, which would primarily provide grants to non-profit organizations with proven experience in violence prevention or community outreach.

Oh….I get it now. Preckwinkle must not expect Obama to win the election either and wants to make sure he has a job waiting for him. Just exactly how is providing money, more money to these organizations going to reduce crime?

And while you are at it Ms. Preckwinkle, could you tell me how this is constitutional?
I mean we hear all the time requiring people to pay money to get an Photo ID is disproportionally harmful to the minority community, right? So wouldn’t a $25 tax (close to the cost of a Texas Driver’s License) be disproportionally harmful to those who want to effectively defend themselves in a city with so many murders?

Please join the discussion.





6 Responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Sailorcurt on 01.11.12 at 11:52

    Not even the worst part. This is a tax on the people who are DEMONSTRABLY not the problem. The tax only applies to firearms purchased through legitimate, legal channels. The can’t tax a gun sale that happens out of the back of Vinny Three Finger’s car or tax guns that are stolen from the legitimate owners (who will have paid the tax).

    Taxes only affect the law abiding.

    Therefore, this is the equivalent to taxing only vehicle owners who’ve NEVER been convicted of a DUI to compensate “the public” for the damage done by drunk drivers.

    Or taxing everyone with a healthy body weight to pay for the costs of obesity.

    Or taxing only people who don’t own pets to pay for the city’s animal control services.

    Basically, they are punishing the law abiding specifically for being law abiding. Don’t want to be punished? Become a criminal. Simple as that.

    Makes perfect sense to me.

  2. Posted by Kalashnikat on 01.11.12 at 11:52

    Ah yes…we need another set of taxes on cars, gasoline, hammers, ball bats, knives of all kinds, straight-razors, they are all clearly sources of incredible violence that serve no real purpose in society…

    A gun is a tool to protect your life, be you 90 pounds of petite female faced with a 250 pound hostile rapist, or a wheelchair bound veteran facing a neighborhood thug who wants your disability check, or any variety of honest peaceable citizen confronted by someone who is not…
    Deterrence doesn’t require the actual firing of a firearm, though the elimination of habitual criminals by means of lawful self defenders is a side benefit.

  3. Posted by Greg Tag on 01.11.12 at 11:52

    Bob and Frends:

    I would like to see this tax implemented. I do not think it will stand a court challenge.

    In the early 60’s, the Supreme Court ruled that the 3 dollar poll tax, used to finance elections, discriminated against poor voters for whom even the trivial amount might be to much to pay. SCOTUS decided that someone could not be made to “pay” to exercise a Constitutional right.

    In Heller and McDonald, the right to keep and bear arms has been determined to be a “fundamental” Constitutional ight.

    In order to keep arms, a person must be able to buy them – a punitive tax on the buying of arms will work to prevent poor people from buying arms that they need for protection, and therefore deny them a fundamental right. A Firearms Tax is in this regard just like a poll tax, and it will be difficult for Cook County to defend against the acusation of a “hidden agenda” here – namely that this tax is to keep poor , minority people from having access to defensive firearms by raisng the price of legally prchased firearms- this is discrimination on its face.

    I suspect that the long-standing Federal 11% Pittman-Robertson Tax on sporting arms will continue to pass muster, but a tax on arms primarily used for personal defense or militia use will not.

    In other words, you can tax the purchase of a Krieghof sporting clays gun, or a Remington 870 skeet gun, but you cannot tax the purchase of a Glock 19 or an AR-15.

    As I said, I look forward to litigation in this matter.

    Cases such as these make it even more important that Mr. Obama is not President when it is time to appoint new Justices to the Supreme Court.

    My two cents.



  4. Posted by CVAN 68 on 01.11.12 at 11:52

    Another hare brained idea. I would expect it to stand legal challenge. Exhorbitant “licensing” costs have been around for years- look at NYC- and are legal. The only option is to unelect the idiots that vote for this crap.

  5. Posted by Greg Tag on 01.11.12 at 11:52


    I do not believe the issue of New York City’s license fees has been litigated; the license fees have certainly not been litigated since Heller and MacDonald.

    SCOTUS saying that the Second Amendment protects a “fundamental right”, is an earthshaking change to the legal landscape.



  6. Posted by maddmedic on 01.11.12 at 11:52

    How about cigarettes?
    Known killers and they only put warning labels on them and let them run free…
    Should be banned….