Thursday, April 09, 2015

Democrat Proposed Tax Credit Encourages Manufacture of 'Assault Weapons'

Representative Rosa DeLauro, CT

Representative Rosa DeLauro, CT, above, will be reintroducing a bill to put a tax credit into the federal tax code.  The credit would encourage the manufacture of 'assault weapons'.    To be fair to Ms DeLauro, she claims that the purpose of the bill is the opposite, to persuade people to turn in rifles, handguns and shotguns that qualify to local, state, or government officials.  That would very likely happen.  But the proposed bill would also encourage the manufacture and sale of the items defined in the bill.  From the proposed bill:
‘‘(1) IN
the case of an individual
6 who surrenders a specified assault weapon to the
7 United States or a State or local government (or po-
8 litical subdivision thereof) as part of a Federal,
9 State, or local public safety program to reduce the
10 number of privately owned weapons, on the election
11 of the taxpayer there shall be allowed as a credit
12 against the tax imposed by this chapter an amount
13 equal to $2,000.
I want to be clear about this.  The bill is about tax credits, not tax deductions.  It is a direct, dollar for dollar credit for unpaid taxes.  It allows $1,000 in credit for the first year, and another $1,000 in credits for the second year.  Only one 'assault weapon' is allowed to be turned in per taxpayer, and the firearm has to be legally owned. 

The bill is the economic equivalent of trying to empty the ocean by filling a bucket on one side of rowboat and emptying it on the other side.  The key to understanding this is to consider what is defined as an 'assault weapon' in the bill, how much such items cost, and what must be done to obtain the tax credit.

Many items defined in the bill as 'assault weapons' have a retail cost far less than $2,000.    A Hi-Point carbine costs less than $250.  A Savage model 64 with a detachable magazine costs less than $150, and a 'forward grip' or threaded muzzle can be added for a few dollars more, turning it into an 'assault weapon' as defined by the bill.  Even stripped lower receivers for the AR type rifles qualify, and they are available for less than $50.   From the bill:
1 ‘‘(J) A frame or receiver that is identical
2 to, or based substantially on the frame or re-
3 ceiver of, a firearm described in any of subpara-
4 graphs (A) through (I) or (L).
The bill says that the firearm has to be legally owned to qualify.  That is not a difficult standard to meet.   It would encourage people to buy qualifying items new, such as stripped lower receivers, so that they could show the receipt to prove that they met the qualifications for the IRS.   It appears that any local government official could hand out receipts showing that such a firearm was turned in.  There is no requirement in the bill that such firearms be destroyed. 

I can envision a scenario where a sheriff was running for reelection, and he says that he will take full advantage of the bill to ensure that qualified supporters receive their free $2,000 tax credit.  It could go something like this:
"Susan, I know that you are not a felon. See that chunk of plastic over there? I give it to you, free and clear.

"Now, hand it in to me, please."

Susan hands it to him.

"Here is your receipt for the $2,000 tax credit, honey. Remember that I did right by you and the tax code come election time."

The sheriff and Susan have not violated any laws.  The bill does not say how long Susan had to own the 'assault weapon'.  Only that she had to turn it in.  The bill does not require destruction of the 'assault weapon'.   Private transfers are perfectly legal in most states.   

 If a Sheriff wanted to be extra careful, he could have a friendly FFL on hand to record the transfers, or have his supporters stop by the gun store on the way to the gun turn in that he is running.

It is hard to believe that Democrat representatives are really this ignorant, lazy, or stupid.   A poster on , iacovatx, offers an alternate suggestion:
Criticizing this bill as ignorant or just plain stupid is missing the point. The sponsors don’t face any personal risk of backlash—their voters are of the same mind. It won’t cost them any money—they are simply spending others’ money which is SOP. The sponsors don’t even care if the bill is taken seriously—it will not be taken seriously by Congress.
This is the fundraising season for the 2016 elections. Deep-pocketed leftists are being sent a signal that gun control and the accompanying human rights violation are still big issues with the Dems. The pleas for donations will point out how even sensible gun control is being blocked by the NRA and opposing politicians. You (deep pocketed leftist or spouse of same) must donate $$ to us so we can win the fight. This is a fundraising ad, not a piece of legislation.
Following this logic, it is not the Democrat congress women and men who are stupid and/or ignorant, it is their donors who are the dupes that they are taking advantage of.  

Congresswoman DeLauro is the sponsor of the bill.  Here are the co-sponsors:
Reps. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), and David Cicilline (D-R.I.).
They are all far left Democrats from safe districts.

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch


Anonymous said...

A little know fact that most judges hate is that a pro se litigant can submit a complaint in any form. There was a letter sent to the United states Supreme court from a convicted felon asking for a review of his conviction. He pointed out a glaring judicial error and the supreme court over turned his conviction. nearly any communication with a court is a form of a motion from a pro se litigant and is required to be appropriately addressed. if necessary the court is required to appoint proper council, paid for from the LSC fund Federal grant money to the legal services corporation fund.

Wireless.Phil said...

Read it 3 times.
Still looks like a comic on a TV show.
I forget his name.

Wireless.Phil said...

Read it 3 times.
Still looks like a comic on a TV show.
I forget his name.

Anonymous said...

"It is hard to believe that Democrat representatives are really this ignorant, lazy, or stupid."

Not really.

Wireless.Phil said...

She reminds me of a male comedian from the 60s.