Weigh In for the 2nd Amendment!

From today's Federal Register:  A posting by the Justice Department:

"Following the President’s Plan to reduce gun violence released on January 16, 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is conducting a review of existing and emerging gun safety technologies and plans to issue a report on the availability and use of those technologies. NIJ seeks input from all interested stakeholders to help inform its technology assessment and market research of existing and emerging gun safety technologies that would be of interest to the law enforcement and criminal justice communities and others with an interest in gun safety ... ..."

Now I am not so idealistic as to believe that the Justice Department folks behind this Federal Register posting are all that open to any suggestions which deviate from their agenda.

But they need to hear from those who value their 2nd Amendment rights.  We wouldn't want them to think that nobody cares!

So follow the directions and submit your comments.

Because if you do not speak up, you will have forfeited your moral standing to complain.

Gunning for Tax Credits

Representative Rosa DeLauro, from Connecticut's 3rd District, has introduced H.R. 226 in the 113th Congress. Raul Grijalva, from Arizona's 3rd District, is the co-sponsor.

H.R. 226 would give a $2,000 tax credit to those who surrender their so-called "assault weapons" to law enforcement authorities.  The tax credit is refundable, which is to say that if the tax owed is less than the credit, the IRS cuts a check to the taxpayer claiming the credit (there are some tax credits which are limited to the amount of tax owed, and are not refundable).

The bill's main flaw (other than being an unabashed attack on our Second Amendment rights) is that the weapon must be "legally possessed" in order for the credit to be claimed.  One must wonder how this poorly conceived legislation will do anything to remove the illegally possessed weapons from hands of criminals.

The other problem is that it is a tax measure.  If the Internal Revenue Code needs to be simplified, adding another provision to it is counterproductive.

Besides, taxation corrupts!  It is not difficult to envision all kinds of so-called "tax shelters" to game the system with this one.  Surely an item that technically conforms to the bill's definition of a specified assault weapon (the proposed legislation does not seem to require that the weapons be operative) can be manufactured and distributed for significantly less than $2,000, purchased, and turned in to the law enforcement authorities.

And while the laws enacted by Congress can be violated, the laws of supply and demand are inviolate.  Enactment of this tax credit provision will drive up the price of the guns, thereby increasing the profit margins in their manufacture.  How would that remove guns from society? [I know, I know.  The registration requirements, according to the gun-grabber advocates, will prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands.].

The bill is bad policy all around.  The tax pundits do not expect this bill to come out of committee (though nothing is a sure thing under the Dome in Washington).

The legislation should be shot down!

Gunning for the Ammo

Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut is introducing legislation to require the same background checks for the purchase of ammunition as are required for the purchase of firearms.

Were it were not part of the current gun-grabbing agenda, I might possibly be able to support it.

But, given the rousing support it has instantaneously elicited from the hoplophobes of all stripes, one must conclusively conclude that it IS part of the hoplophobe's plan to abridge everyone's Second Amendment rights.

Blumenthal's implicit argument is that if we control the sale of ammunition, then people who shouldn't have ammunition will not be able to obtain ammunition.

It must be remembered, however, that the people who shouldn't have ammunition are the same people who shouldn't have firearms.  I therefore will posit the query of why is this legislation necessary if the people who shouldn't have ammunition are the same ones who do not have guns.

The hoplophobes must then concede that the law which prohibits the people who shouldn't have guns does not necessarily stop them from obtaining the guns into which the ammunition they illegally obtain is loaded.

Blumenthal's proposed legislation, then, is an effective admission that gun control legislation does not keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals.