Excise taxes are all around us. They cover a large gamut of goods, many of which are generally considered nonessential. For example, if I buy a good bottle of bourbon, I have to pay an excise tax. The same is true if I buy a tobacco product or go to an amusement park.
Yet there is a move afoot to try and place an excise tax on so-called assault weapons.
To be quite honest, while I’d oppose any additional taxes on anything, a small tax on firearms wouldn’t be the end of the world. It would be a pain, but unless it’s ridiculous, we could weather it.
Unfortunately, the current proposal is ridiculous.
Anti-freedom politicians want to price you out of your rights.
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), along with more than two dozen co-sponsors, recently introduced legislation that, if passed, would impose a 1,000% excise tax on the purchase of “assault weapons” and “high-capacity” magazines.
Beyer introduced similar legislation last year, stating at the time that “Congress must take action to stem the flood of weapons of war into American communities.”
Of course, the ultra-wealthy would still be able to pay such a tax, but the most vulnerable would effectively be priced out. It’s a little like when anti-gun politicians, such as Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), want to take away your rights, but also want you to pay for their armed security. “Armed security for me, but not for thee,” is how America’s 1st Freedom contributor Charles C.W. Cooke put it.
And this tips their hand on the Second Amendment.
See, we generally argue that anti-gun Democrats want to ban guns. That’s not entirely accurate, mostly because nowhere completely and totally bans firearms.
What these anti-gunners want is an effective ban, meaning that for people like you or me, they’re banned, but not for the very wealthy.
This measure doesn’t ban “assault weapons.” It just makes it so the very wealthy are the only ones who can afford them.
I went over to Palmetto State Armory, which is known for making pretty good rifles at a fairly low cost. Their cheapest complete AR-patter rifle, as of this writing, costs $414.99. This proposed excise tax would make that rifle $4,149.90.
Now, do you think that the typical Palmetto State customer has $4,000 to drop on a rifle? Probably not, and that’s kind of the point.
Especially since the wealthy Democratic donors who still want these guns can still afford them.
What? You thought that the average Dem donor was ideologically consistent on the issue of guns? Hardly. See, they trust themselves with all the firearms in the world. It’s you and me they don’t trust, which is why they favor restrictions.
A major excise tax works perfectly for them because it prohibits you and me–the people who can’t afford to drop four-plus figures on a firearm–from buying so-called assault weapons but not them.
Oh, it does nothing to stop bad guys from getting them, but that’s probably a feature, not a bug.
After all, if criminals get them–remember, this includes so-called high-capacity magazines, which the bad guys will get–then that’s just all the more reason to pass additional restrictions on what you and I can buy.
The kicker with the excise tax is that companies like Palmetto State Armory won’t be the ones making the money. They’ll still get their $400+ for an AR-15. It’ll be the government making all the money. As a result, manufacturers will face to loss of total sales as if they’d raised their prices, but that won’t be offset by the increased income from the higher prices.
This will drive a lot of companies–particularly those who sell lower-cost rifles–out of business, which is again a feature and not a bug.
In all of this, though, the wealthy aren’t really impacted all that much. It’s the regular shooter that bears the brunt of this.
And the reason is that Democrats don’t trust you with guns, only their rich buddies.
