The ammo tax proposed in Connecticut is, perhaps, the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard of. It’s a massive tax that would have a significant impact on any number of aspects of shooting sports and a clear infringement on the Second Amendment. Frankly, it’s an idea that’s so dumb, it could only come from New England.
But it’s an important issue because it’s a bill that’s been proposed. At least we can rest easy knowing that experts will be called on to testify about any positives and negatives of this bill, right?
The Ridgefield teenager who two years ago organized a national school walkout over gun control threw her support last week behind a bill that would tax ammunition purchases in the state of Connecticut.
“An excise tax on ammunition would send a message that should be clear — you have the right to own a weapon, but you do have to pay for the damages it can cause,” said Lane Murdock, during testimony Feb. 27.
The bill in question, House Bill 5040, would create a 35 percent excise tax on ammunition sold in Connecticut. The proposed legislation drew protest from gun-rights advocates at the public hearing last Thursday, who claimed it would unnecessarily punish responsible gun owners if adopted into law.
In 2018, when Murdock was a sophomore at Ridgefield High School, she organized a national movement in which students around the country walked out of class in the wake of the high school shooting in Parkland.
The April 20 protest was purposely chosen to coincide with the 19th anniversary of the Columbine massacre, widely seen as the first modern mass school shooting.
In the two years since the walkout, Murdock, now 17, said her generation has “seen some change but not enough,” and has watched gun control debates from the sidelines, unable to vote.
So, we have someone who isn’t even old enough to vote being brought in to testify about a bill. What relevant expertise does she possess? Is she a prodigy in data analysis or something of that sort? Is she someone who has studied the issue and can make salient points about the potential effects of a proposed law?
No. She’s someone who does nothing but parrot the anti-gun talking points about this bill.
Further, her testimony is yet another example of how anti-gunners want to blame law-abiding gun owners for the actions of criminals. Her saying, “but you do have to pay for the damages it can cause” is nothing more than an attempt to blame us for the actions of people who are breaking numerous laws already.
The truth is that the ammo tax won’t make anyone safer. Quite the opposite, actually. By increasing the cost of ammunition, you increase the cost of building and maintaining skills. That means fewer will bother, meaning that should they need to use a gun to defend themselves, they’re less likely to be effective with it. After all, it was too expensive to practice.
Further, it will continue to push shooting into the category of a rich man’s game. Guns are already expensive enough, but making ammo so costly will make it nearly impossible for the poor to have the means to protect themselves.
But that’s missing from Murdock’s testimony.
That’s not surprising. She’s an activist, not an expert, and as such shouldn’t have been called on to testify in the first place.