Abolish tax on hearing protection!

13 Responses to Abolish tax on hearing protection!

1. Sha-ul says:

   April 12, 2011 at 10:52 pm

   I agree fully, suppressors need to be de-listed from the NFA, at the very least the tax stamp should either be changed to an excise tax paid at the point of sale, or if they insist on it being a stamp, sell the stamp like a hunting license at you local Walmart, or sporting good supply.
   The 6 month delay serves no real purpose that cannot be achieved with a 5 minute call to the NCIC like is done for any over the counter firearm sale.
2. Tony Lekas says:

   April 13, 2011 at 10:10 am

   Having restrictions makes no real sense. They should be treated the same as a scope, sling, etc. In other words, you should be able to purchase them over the counter for cash. No need for ID.

   Of course I believe the same should be true for firearmsm as it used to be. In fact, the words gun, firearm, handgun, etc should not even exist in any law Federal, State, or Local. If you unjustifiably threaten or cause harm you should be prosecuted for that regardless of the tool you might use to do it.
3. Phil Stracchino says:

   April 13, 2011 at 5:14 pm

   “In fact, the words gun, firearm, handgun, etc should not even exist in any law Federal, State, or Local” — unless as a part of language something like “No person or agency shall deny, infringe, tax, license or restrict the right of any law-abiding citizen of sound mind to purchase, own, have in their possession, or make any lawful use of…”

4. Pingback: SayUncle » Abolish the tax on hearing protection

5. Pingback: Stop the tax on Hearing Protection | Nerd with a .45

6. Bill Cyrus says:

   April 15, 2011 at 10:04 am

   The interesting thing further is that suppressors are a 100% American made product that would have a HUGE domestic demand were they to be de-listed from the NFA. We’re badly in need of manufacturing in this country and suppressor companies employ engineers, welders, and machinists which are high paid, high tech skilled jobs. It could also significantly increase the influx of new firearms owners who are often deterred by the objectionable and scary muzzle reports both of what they’re firing and others at firing ranges–which again stimulates demand for American made skilled manufactured products at a time we’re deeply in need of it. The economic growth benefits are simply too huge to ignore.
   • Tam says:

     April 15, 2011 at 10:20 am

     I would like to stat for the record that the above comment is so pull of politically-salable win that it almost hurt to read. 8)

     Quick! Dress this man up like a lobbyist and let’s pass the hat to get him to Washington.

7. Pingback: Abolish tax on hearing protection! | VolkStudio Blog

8. Greg says:

   April 15, 2011 at 11:01 am

   I’ve got to agree with Bill on this one. The demand for suppressors would be incredible if the tax and hassle were removed from the equation. I know I’d be looking to pick up one for each of the guns I use regularly at the range.

   Selling this as economics versus rights is probably the best way to position the issue with the political class.
9. Robert says:

   April 15, 2011 at 4:41 pm

   Not to be picky, but I think the poster would work much better if it said “SMART: protecting your own ears. POLITE: protecting everyone’s ears.” In this context, protecting your eyes is somewhat of a tangent that distracts from what the overall message of the poster is trying to get across. Keeping the poster centered on hearing protection would make it much more effective, in my opinion.
10. seeker_two says:

    April 16, 2011 at 1:47 pm

    Forget changing the tax stamp…just move supressors, SBR’s. SBS’s, and AOW’s to the same NICS check that all other firearms use….it accomplishes the same thing as NFA ’34 intended, simplifies purchases, and gives us another reason to abolish the BATFE…..
    • Geodkyt says:

      April 18, 2011 at 11:42 am

      Seeker_Two:

      The same could be said of DDs and MGs

11. Pingback: perfect plans are never executed | walls of the city

Comments are closed.