This video was Tweeted out by Connecticut State Representative Jillian Gilchrest.
I’ve introduced HB 5700, a 50% tax increase on ammunition. It doesn’t apply to military or law enforcement. I’m hearing push back about the need to protect one's home… but how much ammunition does someone really need to do that? #gunsense #enough pic.twitter.com/NZjkWBrpjC
— Jillian Gilchrest (@Jilchrest) February 4, 2019
She is so excited to propose a bill that would increase the sales tax on ammo to 50%.
Her example is “if someone were to buy a fifty cartridge box of ammunition” they would pay $15 instead of $10.
Again, we are treated to another anti-gun Democrat who just sounds fucking stupid when talking about something gun related. They string words together, that while technically correct, come up with a sentence that sounds like it was spoken by someone form whom English is not their primary language and just learned recently.
This really does illustrate just how different the cultural gulf is between the Left and Right on topics like this, that when they talk about guns they sound like they are learning to speak a foreign language.
But I digress…
She admits that the purpose of this tax is to decrease use by increasing cost. Exactly like what Connecticut has done with cigarettes.
The question raised by this bill is, who is most going to be hurt by this punitive taxation on ammo?
How much ammo do criminals go through?
I’d guess, not much. You can rob a lot of stores without firing a shot.
When it comes to mass shootings, what we’ve seen in virtually all of them is the shooter taking weeks and months to plan the shooting. Most of them seem to know that they will not survive the event, given the number that end in suicides. Will a $100 in taxes on a case of 9mm really be the hindrance to the wannabe mass shooter who plans on going down in blaze of infamy?
Of course not.
This bill is aimed at target shooters who buy large volumes of ammo for practice or competition.
A USPSA stage has a max of 32 round required, six stages per course, that’s 192 rounds. Not all stages meet the max, but factor in misses and re-shoots, and 200 rounds per match is a decent number.
That’s $20 in taxes using cheap 9mm.
A round of Trap or Sporting Clays is 100 rounds. That’s about $15 in taxes for 12 gauge target loads.
The text of the bill isn’t available yet, so I don’t know if it will put this tax on reloading components or not. Part of me thinks it will because she clearly hates target shooters. Part of me thinks it won’t because she’s too stupid to consider that.
Either way, reloading is not an option for some people, and law abiding gun owners should not be forced into rolling their own in secret to avoid oppressive goverment like the Israelis under the British Mandate.
Her Tweet says “I’m hearing push back about the need to protect one’s home… but how much ammunition does someone really need to do that?”
That’s strawman held together with bullshit.
It’s not about the one box of Golden Saber I have loaded in my home defense gun.
It’s about the cases of UMC I burn up at the range in practice.
My ammo budget, as a rank amateur who don’t get to shoot as much as I’d like, is at a minimum 250 rounds of 45 ACP per month. If I do a round of clays or have a day zeroing rifles, or shoot the odd carbine match, I can bump that to 500 rounds per month.
With an MSRP of $112 per mega-pack of 45, that’s $56 in taxes per month alone on just pistol ammo.
It is glaringly obvious that this bill is supposed to suppress target and competitive shooting in the Constitution State by wearing down the ammo budgets of working and middle class shooters.
Because nothing says “Constitution” like making exercising a right explicitly protected in the bill of rights, prohibitively expensive.
It’s great how a Democrat can mention that for things like cigarettes and ammo that increasing taxes has the direct goal of reducing consumption by making the good more expensive.
Then on the other hand they will say that increasing taxes on income or payroll or capital gains will not decrease any productivity by making production more expensive.
Why are they allowed to slide on holding these contradictory opinions simultaneously.