collapse

Advertisement


Author Topic: Hb2238 ammo tax  (Read 4400 times)

Offline timberfaller

  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2014
  • Posts: 4424
  • Location: East Wenatchee
Re: Hb2238 ammo tax
« Reply #15 on: January 11, 2024, 02:42:12 PM »
 R reps will say NO to it,

D reps will vote YES,

Who has the most votes in Olympia???

Start calling the D's.

Better yet, vote them out of office!  Most problems will be solved then! :tup:
The only good tree, is a stump!

Offline bigmacc

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Posts: 6598
  • Location: the woods
Re: Hb2238 ammo tax
« Reply #16 on: January 11, 2024, 04:21:18 PM »
R reps will say NO to it,

D reps will vote YES,

Who has the most votes in Olympia???

Start calling the D's.

Better yet, vote them out of office!  Most problems will be solved then! :tup:
Well, in a nutshell, you’re spot on.

Offline Sneaky

  • Savage
  • Trade Count: (+9)
  • Longhunter
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Posts: 896
Re: Hb2238 ammo tax
« Reply #17 on: January 12, 2024, 08:40:13 PM »
Hello and thank you for your audience in receiving this message. I strongly oppose the idea of imposing a new tax on the sale or transfer of ammunition as it is unfair, lacks specificity in the use of the funding it would generate, and fails to consider taxes that are already levied on ammunition. Additionally, similar municipal taxes have completely failed to curb gun violence and mental health issues. While not inclusive of all negative aspects of this idea, my main thoughts are as follows:

1. A tax on ammunition unfairly places burden and blame on lawful gun owners for gun violence and mental health issues. Statistically, the vast majority (75%) of gun violence that occurs in Washington is attributed to suicide (Alliance for Gun Responsibility). Suicide is a mental health issue that should be of utmost concern to ALL citizens of Washington. The burden of funding government programs aimed at reducing gun violence and suicide should not fall solely on one user group. The effort to reduce problems that exist in society as a whole should be funded by all participants of society.

 2. In the text of the bill, there is a glaring lack of specificity as to how these funds would be used if taken. The text reads that the new tax would go "to programs that aim to prevent suicide and to reduce firearm-related domestic violence". What does that actually mean? Do these programs currently exist? If so, they have already shown to not be effective. Are these programs government programs? Non-profits? Are there measures in place to monitor that the funds are being used effectively? Are there statistical goals or milestones that the funds aim to meet? There are simply too many questions to ensure that the money taken from hard-working Washingtonians by way of a new tax would be used fairly, properly, and effectively.

3. Extra taxes that support mental health, the core problem in all gun related violence, are already being levied from ammunition sales nationwide. In case you were unaware, The Pittman-Robertson act of 1937 already imposes an 11% tax on ammunition. This excise tax generates hundreds of millions of dollars annually and has very specific parameters on how the money is used, unlike this proposed legislation. The funding from this tax has been used extensively to promote firearm safety and restore America's wildlife and natural spaces. PR money has been used to fund hunter-education programs which teach firearm safety, a critical missing component in our education system. Further, PR money provides for preservation and improved access to open spaces where people can enjoy the outdoors. Research has shown that time spent outside and physical excercise are some of the most important and effective ways to maintain your physical and mental health. Imposing yet another tax on ammunition would reduce PR dollars by reducing the amount of ammunition and other taxed products that lawful firearm owners can purchase.

4. In 2016, a similar tax was imposed in the city of Seattle with the aim of reducing gun violence. Again, the tax lacked specificity in how the funds would be spent. The text of the ordinance reads that he city would "use that revenue to provide broad-based public benefits for residents of Seattle related to gun violence by funding programs that promote public safety, prevent gun violence and address in part the cost of gun violence in the City." Again, this ordinance was used to fund phantom "programs", which likely meant that there was no solid plan for how to use hard-working peoples money after they collected it. Furthermore, since 2016, gun violence in Seattle has increased dramatically, demonstrating that the tax was completely without effect and only served to hurt local business and lawful gun owners. According to the city of Seattle Crime Dashboard, in 2016 there were 250 reports of shots fired, 10 fatal shootings, and 57 non-fatal injury shootings. In 2023, there were 487 reports of shots fired, 42 fatal shootings, and 149 non-fatal injury shootings. I can't picture a better demonstration of failure. There were literally four times the amount of fatal shootings after imposing a gun violence reduction tax. I think this should tell us that taking someone elses money and giving it to "programs" is not the answer. Thank you for your time in reading this and I ask that you please vote no on this bill as it is fundamentally flawed.

Offline TommyH

  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2011
  • Posts: 2107
  • Location: Eastside
Re: Hb2238 ammo tax
« Reply #18 on: January 13, 2024, 08:24:14 AM »
Hello and thank you for your audience in receiving this message. I strongly oppose the idea of imposing a new tax on the sale or transfer of ammunition as it is unfair, lacks specificity in the use of the funding it would generate, and fails to consider taxes that are already levied on ammunition. Additionally, similar municipal taxes have completely failed to curb gun violence and mental health issues. While not inclusive of all negative aspects of this idea, my main thoughts are as follows:

1. A tax on ammunition unfairly places burden and blame on lawful gun owners for gun violence and mental health issues. Statistically, the vast majority (75%) of gun violence that occurs in Washington is attributed to suicide (Alliance for Gun Responsibility). Suicide is a mental health issue that should be of utmost concern to ALL citizens of Washington. The burden of funding government programs aimed at reducing gun violence and suicide should not fall solely on one user group. The effort to reduce problems that exist in society as a whole should be funded by all participants of society.

 2. In the text of the bill, there is a glaring lack of specificity as to how these funds would be used if taken. The text reads that the new tax would go "to programs that aim to prevent suicide and to reduce firearm-related domestic violence". What does that actually mean? Do these programs currently exist? If so, they have already shown to not be effective. Are these programs government programs? Non-profits? Are there measures in place to monitor that the funds are being used effectively? Are there statistical goals or milestones that the funds aim to meet? There are simply too many questions to ensure that the money taken from hard-working Washingtonians by way of a new tax would be used fairly, properly, and effectively.

3. Extra taxes that support mental health, the core problem in all gun related violence, are already being levied from ammunition sales nationwide. In case you were unaware, The Pittman-Robertson act of 1937 already imposes an 11% tax on ammunition. This excise tax generates hundreds of millions of dollars annually and has very specific parameters on how the money is used, unlike this proposed legislation. The funding from this tax has been used extensively to promote firearm safety and restore America's wildlife and natural spaces. PR money has been used to fund hunter-education programs which teach firearm safety, a critical missing component in our education system. Further, PR money provides for preservation and improved access to open spaces where people can enjoy the outdoors. Research has shown that time spent outside and physical excercise are some of the most important and effective ways to maintain your physical and mental health. Imposing yet another tax on ammunition would reduce PR dollars by reducing the amount of ammunition and other taxed products that lawful firearm owners can purchase.

4. In 2016, a similar tax was imposed in the city of Seattle with the aim of reducing gun violence. Again, the tax lacked specificity in how the funds would be spent. The text of the ordinance reads that he city would "use that revenue to provide broad-based public benefits for residents of Seattle related to gun violence by funding programs that promote public safety, prevent gun violence and address in part the cost of gun violence in the City." Again, this ordinance was used to fund phantom "programs", which likely meant that there was no solid plan for how to use hard-working peoples money after they collected it. Furthermore, since 2016, gun violence in Seattle has increased dramatically, demonstrating that the tax was completely without effect and only served to hurt local business and lawful gun owners. According to the city of Seattle Crime Dashboard, in 2016 there were 250 reports of shots fired, 10 fatal shootings, and 57 non-fatal injury shootings. In 2023, there were 487 reports of shots fired, 42 fatal shootings, and 149 non-fatal injury shootings. I can't picture a better demonstration of failure. There were literally four times the amount of fatal shootings after imposing a gun violence reduction tax. I think this should tell us that taking someone elses money and giving it to "programs" is not the answer. Thank you for your time in reading this and I ask that you please vote no on this bill as it is fundamentally flawed.

 :yeah:  :yeah:

 


* Advertisement

* Recent Topics

Where can one find hides from hunters? by MightyWhite
[Today at 04:57:11 AM]


Is it a conflict of interest by bigtex
[Today at 03:45:38 AM]


Wildlife Obsession Duvall WA Taxidermy Closing its doors by dreadi
[Yesterday at 11:44:18 PM]


Seekins PH3 by dreadi
[Yesterday at 11:42:42 PM]


Hunting DNR Natural Area Preserves by bbarnes
[Yesterday at 10:16:21 PM]


"Any Deer" GMU's - Proof of Sex? by Sitka_Blacktail
[Yesterday at 10:15:35 PM]


2025 elk success thread!! by dreadi
[Yesterday at 10:04:51 PM]


Cell Cams for Westside Elk by dreadi
[Yesterday at 10:00:30 PM]


Who knows electric bikes? looking at Quietkat options by highside74
[Yesterday at 09:26:44 PM]


Hunting Exotics in Texas by Shooting Stix
[Yesterday at 08:55:06 PM]


WA Bucket List….Mule Deer Permit by millerwheeler
[Yesterday at 08:52:27 PM]


Older SxS shotgun by caribou creek
[Yesterday at 08:00:11 PM]


GO 2025 15th Annual Hunting-Washington Christmas Gift Exchange by pianoman9701
[Yesterday at 07:51:45 PM]


30-40 Yard Shots at Coyotes using the NocPix Rico 2 S75R 1280 by pashok23
[Yesterday at 07:43:15 PM]


Tease 'l' by boneaddict
[Yesterday at 06:06:47 PM]


Idaho on the verge of outlawing by bearpaw
[Yesterday at 05:40:27 PM]


Hunting buddies by Hunter_drake5
[Yesterday at 04:08:23 PM]


Degreasing A Deer Skull by TommyGun496
[Yesterday at 03:59:09 PM]


Rut Buddies by Jpmiller
[Yesterday at 03:25:52 PM]


Stickers by Brute
[Yesterday at 11:56:27 AM]

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2025, SimplePortal