Democrat introduces House bill to tax every gun $100

Rate this post

Nydia Velazquez
Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), the first Puerto Rican woman to be elected to Congress, with a history of clinical depression and attempted suicide, has introduced a bill in the House that would tax gun owners at a rate of $100 per firearm with proceeds going towards “anti-violence and mental health programs.”
H.R. 3830, Reducing Gun Violence in our Neighborhoods Act of 2015, was introduced on Oct. 26, 2015, with 12 co-sponsors, all Democrats:

  1. Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-9]
  2. Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-14]
  3. Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5]
  4. Rep Farr, Sam [CA-20]
  5. Rep Hinojosa, Ruben [TX-15]
  6. Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-17]
  7. Rep Jeffries, Hakeem S. [NY-8]
  8. Rep Meeks, Gregory W. [NY-5]
  9. Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-10]
  10. Rep Napolitano, Grace F. [CA-32]
  11. Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-13]
  12. Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-15]

HR 3830 describes its purpose as “To reduce gun violence, increase mental health counseling, and enhance the tracking of lost and stolen firearms.” If it becomes law, a $100 federal tax would be assessed on the sale of all new firearms. Revenue generated from the tax would go to a Department of Justice “Gun Violence Reduction and Mental Health Counseling Trust Fund”.
But any firearm by the federal, state or local government for police or other law enforcement purposes will be exempted from the tax.
In addition, HR 3830 would authorize the Attorney General to establish “a national standard for the incorporation of a passive identification capability into all firearms sold in the United States.”
“Passive identification capability” is defined as “a technology that–(A) enables a firearm to be identified by a mobile or fixed reading device; and (B) does not emit or broadcast an electronic signal or other information that would enable the firearm or its owner to be monitored or tracked.”
According to the National Rifle Association, Americans have acquired more than 170 million new firearms since 1991. The Congressional Research Service estimated the number of firearms in the U.S. at more than 310 million.
Interestingly, the main contributors to Velasquez’s election campaigns have been banks, including Goldman Sachs. (Source: Open Secrets)
She has consistently voted against bi-partisan House efforts to audit the federal reserve, both in 2009 and in 2012. 
In 2012, the American Small Business League (ASBL) named Velazquez as the most anti-small business member of the U.S. House of Representatives. She blocked legislation, including H.R. 3184, “The Fairness and Transparency in Contracting Act,” that would prevent large corporations from claiming billions of dollars worth of federal contracts reserved for small businesses. Velazquez also voted to divert billions in federal contract dollars earmarked for small businesses to firms such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, BlackWater and Italian defense firm Finmeccanica.
According to AL.com, Velazquez’s proposal is just the latest in a series of gun control measures introduced by Congressional Democrats. Earlier this summer, another New York Congresswoman, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, introduced a measure that would require gun owners to have liability insurance coverage before being allowed to purchase a weapon or face a fine of up to $10,000.
Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke
With Republicans a majority in the House, it is unlikely that Velazquez’s bill will pass. But Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke warns us that Obama’s and the Democrats’ gun-control strategy is an incremental step-by-step approach.
Asked by Breitbart.com about Obama’s and Hillary Clinton‘s approval of Australia’s gun confiscation, the sheriff said:

They won’t be able to it before Obama leaves office. Now, under a Mrs. Bill Clinton presidency, who knows. But even they know it’s down the road. I don’t know how far, but these people are slick, they are stealth in how they go about it. What they do is lay the groundwork, they pave the road approaching their ultimate goal of confiscation.
What Obama will try to do with his remaining time in office is further weaken the Second Amendment and frustrate the ability of people to keep and bear arms and purchase guns without having to jump through unreasonable hoops. Then the next person will take it step further, then the next person, then the next, and suddenly you realize gun confiscation is within reach. And that is their goal.
Between now and then they will go step by step, slowly conditioning the American people to buy into the lie.

See also:

H/t MomOfIV
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

0 responses to “Democrat introduces House bill to tax every gun $100

  1. I can hardly wait to see her bill on cars and drugs overdoses, both, of which caused more deaths than guns.
    She doesn’t sound too stable, but then again, she will fit right in with the rest in DC.
    I do respect Sheriff Clark, he has more sense than the lot of them.

     
    • The Top 10 causes of death in the U.S., are, in order: tobacco use; medical errors; unintentional injuries; alcohol abuse; motor vehicle accidents; accidental poisoning; drug abuse; falls; non-firearm homicides; and firearm homicides. According to the FBI, the #1 weapon used in violent crimes is …
      a baseball bat. Yet we see no outraged cries from the Left to ban them.
      If the fact that citizens who are exercising their right to keep and bear arms intimidates liberals so much, then liberals need to do a reality check to determine why the rights of the people are so intimidating to them.

       
  2. When will people realize that punishing the innocent is as foolish as blaming the gun for the crimes committed by it? (rhetorical)
    How about increasing the punishment for committing any crime – especially WITH A GUN? Greater punishment for convicted criminals is the deterrent. Take away their guns and they’ll just use something else.
    And, by the way, criminals don’t give a damn about laws, stupid! That’s WHY they’re called “criminals”. Their logic, or lack thereof, fails me…
    I know, I know. I’m wasting my time and effort trying to drive common sense into the empty heads of liberals. I stand a much chance of teaching my dog to play the harp than teaching them to think – period.
    Ultimately, their final goal is to disarm the citizenry so as to subjugate us without a chance of a resistance.

     
  3. Kevin J Lankford

    Can’t afford it; “ain’t” gonna pay it.

     
  4. How about a $100 tax for anyone who votes for Reps. Velazquez or Maloney, both from NY, home of Hillary Clinton?
    Good luck getting most users of guns in crimes to have liability insurance when purchasing that weapon. The chances are, that gun was either not purchased or, if purchased, from one who would not demand such coverage from the customer.

     
  5. More backdoor gun registration… preparing for Democrats’ favorite, confiscation for “the common good” as a “public health problem” or something. (All the “passive identification” stuff will have to be registered somewhere to work, ya know… )

     
  6. About the only productive thing these Commies contribute to the private sector is increasing gun and ammo sales.

     
  7. I’d prefer a tax on liberals every time they do or say something stupid.
    -Dave

     
  8. This bill is unfair and unprincipled on its face: It is supported by Goldman-Sachs. And it aims to use the proposed tax for “mental health services.” Are there some mentally ill people who own firearms? Yes. SO WHAT? The folks at Goldman ought to know that every single time government sets about to solve a problem, that problem only gets worse over time.
    And this is what gets me about Nydia Velasquez: You would think she would know better, but she actually does not. This woman is UNFIT for public office, and if she were a conservative-libertarian, I would say the same thing. I guess she’s training to be Nancy Pelosi’s replacement!

     
  9. These politicians behind more anti-gun laws are proof that the insane asylums should never have been closed.

     
  10. I love asking loonies why they HATE poor people so much. That is, after all, the demographic that would be hurt the worst by a STUPID law such as this. Make it harder and more expensive for the people with the least money, who live in the most dangerous areas, to protect themselves. It’s almost like they WANT them to be killed.
    They start spluttering…. maybe SOME of them will start to THINK instead.

     
  11. Personally, as a middle school teacher..I’d like the government to put a $100 tax on every fancy cell phone bought for use for a child under the age of…say…..16…..or 18…….. Since Big Daddy Government seems to be regulating everyone else…why NOT regulate to help education?
    Do YOU PEOPLE out there who have kids in school understand that your child wants to have their hands on THE PHONE 24-7? This includes school time, even if there are “rules” about NOT using the phone during school hours? They want to text “mom” (code for…their friend in another class), they want to call home….they want to access the internet for “whatever” good “educational reason they can give….which usually ends up playing an online video game during class lectures, tests, etc. They ask constantly to be able to “listen to music” while they work…..which means….”grooving with their friends” instead of doing classwork. They break out a phone and take group “selfies” against the rules, which…MOM AND DAD..is ILLEGAL in school b/c they most likely will post the photo online….which means they expose themselves AND classmates from whose parents NO PHOTO RELEASE was obtained …….so any pervert or child predator can figure out the location and act as a “friend,”—–
    I abhor it. It exhausts me as a teacher. I have to constantly “police’ the cell phone crap in every hour of instruction…….It is extra work for me….which means…I am the cell phone “police” instead of a teacher. At a certain point, I have to inform the kids that educatioin is THEIR choice. I am here to “give it.” It is their choice whether or not they chose to RECEIVE it…and, I might add….I always note that a child at school only represents what was taught/expected of him/her at home. There’s not much I can DO to alter THAT.

     

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *