Gun Confiscation Bill Introduced in Congress! Credit system slipped into tax bill..

On January 13, 2013, H.R. 226 was introduced in the House of Representatives by Connecticut Democrat Rep. Rosa DeLauro. The bill will amend the 1986 IRS code and allow a credit if taxpayers “surrender” their guns to the government.

How many people do you think are going to give up their guns for this? This is the first step. What's next?

the main ones will be those who have a gun in the back draw that hasn't been fired in 20 years and firing it now is something you dont fancy doing due to the rust etc but they'll give you a good value for the gun and since you don't need it (as it'll take your hand off) so why not get maximum value for something ?

reply to post by OperationLovestrike


www.abovetopsecret.com... other thread on the issue if you were interested


ill say the same thing i said in the other thread that its just letting the tax code be changed to accept people willingly trading in their weapons nothing is being confiscated unless you want to turn in an assault weapon for what looks like 2ish grand so if you have any broken or junk guns you dont want any more try to trade them in for a tax break/cash reward and use that to buy useful weapons and keep the good guns you already have

Originally posted by OperationLovestrike
On January 13, 2013, H.R. 226 was introduced in the House of Representatives by Connecticut Democrat Rep. Rosa DeLauro. The bill will amend the 1986 IRS code and allow a credit if taxpayers “surrender” their guns to the government.

How many people do you think are going to give up their guns for this? This is the first step. What's next?

That's what I want to do, I want to give up something with multiple uses, for credit with a system based on fallacy and corruption.. all so I can get some fictional credit towards an endless ponzi scheme.


Not really though.

does handing in the old rusty six shooter for credit stop you from buying a new gloc ?

I wouldn't quite call that confiscation, I see it maybe being as successful as the local voluntary gun grabs they have. A whole lot of people will be turning in old junk guns and getting more for it than they would through private sale. Hopefully they will actually be checking that guns turned in weren't stolen this time though

reply to post by TKDRL


There is a bad side effect with that though. It is the same side effect I seen with the cash for clunkers. It drove the price of used cars sky high. You could get older beater cars for $400 to $600 before CforC. Afterwards it was hard to get one for under $2000 to $3000. It really hit a lot of people hard that depended on such cars being available in the used market for day to day transportation.

The price of used cars is still higher that what they should be but they are slowly coming down. I have started to seen some for a $1000 or so here and there.

I don’t want to see the same thing with guns. There is people that use a single shot break action shotguns because they can’t afford anything more at the time. And there is a lot of people that let their children learn on single shot 22s because they are cheap and don’t cost much to shoot..

I would hate to see the price of old single shot shotguns, and 22 pinker rifles go into the 200+ range. That will just hit the people that can’t afford much the hardest.

this already happens in many states, as a "buy back" program

this is not confiscation

doom fail

reply to post by Mr Tranny


That is an excellent point. It has also happened with spare parts as well. Used to be able to go to a junkyard or two, and get prettymuch any parts you can imagine. Not so much today.

My hobby, well one of them, is actually picking up old guns cheap and restoring them. I never really expected it to get as bad as the car situation seems to be, I hope it doesn't at least.

reply to post by TKDRL


It says right in the bill, that the guns, (and there is a list of specific ones that looks strangely familiar; old rusty revolvers are not on it) must be "legally owned" to get the credit, so someone will be checking, I'm sure...

But, what happens when your average senior citizen who happens to live in a town with an IRS building in it, takes their "assault weapon" in to "surrender" it???

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
(and there is a list of specific ones that looks strangely familiar; old rusty revolvers are not on it)

Do you honestly think they are going to stop at that?

Heck, you can get arrested in California if you are caught with a marlin model 60 with an older style full size magazine tube on it.

Stuff like that will be making it’s way to the rest of the US pretty soon. I am just waiting for them to classify my old marlin model 60 as a high capacity assault weapon.

reply to post by GoOfYFoOt


That was a tongue in cheek jab at the local gun turnins.

(a) Allowance of Credit.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of an individual who
surrenders a specified assault weapon to the United States or a
State or local government (or political subdivision thereof) as
part of a Federal, State, or local public safety program to
reduce the number of privately owned weapons, on the election
of the taxpayer there shall be allowed as a credit against the
tax imposed by this chapter an amount equal to $2,000.
``(2) Year credit allowed.--The amount of the credit under
paragraph (1) shall be allowed 1/2 for the taxable year
during which the assault weapon was so surrendered and 1/2 in
the next taxable year.
``(b) Special Rules.--
``(1) Weapon must be lawfully possessed.--No credit shall
be allowed under subsection (a) with respect to any specified
assault weapon not lawfully possessed by the taxpayer at the
time the weapon is surrendered.
``(2) Substantiation requirement.--No credit shall be
allowed under subsection (a) for the surrender of any specified
assault weapon unless the taxpayer substantiates the surrender
by a contemporaneous written acknowledgment of the surrender by
the Federal, State, or local governmental entity to which the
weapon is surrendered.
``(3) Denial of double benefit.--The taxpayer may elect the
application of this section with respect to only 1 weapon, and
if such election is made for any taxable year, no deduction
shall be allowed under any other provision of this chapter with
respect to the surrender or contribution of the specified
assault weapon.

I finally found it though, there is some of it, it is way too long to copypasta the whole thing here though.
Linky

My searches kept coming up with older bills, so I had not read it in full until now
Apparently, it only seems to cover guns labeled as "assault rifles"

Doh, scratch that, there are some pistols and shotguns listed as well.

Originally posted by TKDRL
Doh, scratch that, there are some pistols and shotguns listed as well.

Any semi auto pistol with a detachable mag that has a treaded barrel would qualify.

Take any glock, get a 140 dollar threaded barrel kit for it. = $2000

A semi auto rifle with a detachable mag that has a pistol grip, or telescopic stock.

A marlin 795, with a 100 dollar stock kit= $2000

The restriction on 22 rifles with a fixed mag of more than 10 round capacity only affects rifles with a fixed mag.

Even as it is (not counting what may come down the line later), that bill would drive the price for many guns through the roof.
..............edit............
And remember another fact. Things that start out as voluntary usually end up as compulsory. It is your own option right now, what if they get to the point that they tell you, you have to.

Originally posted by Mr Tranny

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
(and there is a list of specific ones that looks strangely familiar; old rusty revolvers are not on it)

Do you honestly think they are going to stop at that?

Heck, you can get arrested in California if you are caught with a marlin model 60 with an older style full size magazine tube on it.

Stuff like that will be making it’s way to the rest of the US pretty soon. I am just waiting for them to classify my old marlin model 60 as a high capacity assault weapon.

The "rusty revolver" quip was directed at another poster...

According to the list, several "assault 22's" are listed already...Why the Model 60 was not, I couldn't say...It seems that the "looks" of the guns are more important than capability, for the bill's purpose...

External mags, "barrel shrouds", collapsible shoulder stocks, forward mounted hand grips and the like, do nothing to make a gun more lethal, but they look "scary"....

If common sense was used, and it was just about ammo capacity, a Ruger 10/22 would not be on the list and your Marlin, would be...But, you know how that goes, when talking about politicians...

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
a Ruger 10/22 would not be on the list and your Marlin, would be...

With the wording they have now, any 10/22 with a stock kit, or threaded barrel kit will be worth a $2000 tax cut.

If you want a 10/22 get one now, because they will probably be going for $1000 to $2000 if that bill is passed.

“Why should I sell this to you for $500 when I can take it to the government and get $2000?”

Originally posted by Mr Tranny

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
a Ruger 10/22 would not be on the list and your Marlin, would be...

With the wording they have now, any 10/22 with a stock kit, or threaded barrel kit will be worth a $2000 tax cut.

If you want a 10/22 get one now, because they will probably be going for $1000 to $2000 if that bill is passed.

“Why should I sell this to you for $500 when I can take it to the government and get $2000?”

Close!....LOL....I had a 10/22 with the Archangel Nomad conversion stock, with 6 Ruger BX-25s and two cases of CCI stingers...I got $750 out of it all, on GB, a few years ago...

I'll stick to my Remington 597 in .22wmr, until I can pick up a Keltec RMR-30...

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
reply to post by TKDRL

 

It says right in the bill, that the guns, (and there is a list of specific ones that looks strangely familiar; old rusty revolvers are not on it) must be "legally owned" to get the credit, so someone will be checking, I'm sure...

But, what happens when your average senior citizen who happens to live in a town with an IRS building in it, takes their "assault weapon" in to "surrender" it???

Hmm, that's actually a really good point.