Yeti

Rep. Clyde Introduces Legislation to Eliminate the Excise Tax on Firearms and Ammunition

joelweb

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
353
Location
Big Sky Country

Press Releases​



Rep. Clyde Introduces Legislation to Eliminate the Excise Tax on Firearms and Ammunition​


Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Print this Page Share by Email

Washington, June 22, 2022

Tags: Second Amendment



WASHINGTON, DC — Today, Congressman Andrew Clyde (GA-09) and 53 original cosponsors introduced the RETURN (Repealing Excise Tax on Unalienable Rights Now) our Constitutional Rights Act to eliminate the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.

“In case my Democrat colleagues forgot, the Bill of Rights enumerates rights to which the government cannot infringe. Unquestionably, infringement exists when the government taxes those rights to limit the people's ability to exercise them,” said Clyde. “As assaults against Americans’ Second Amendment freedoms continue to emerge, so do treacherous threats that seek to weaponize taxation in order to price this constitutional right out of the reach of average Americans. I firmly believe that no American should be taxed on their enumerated rights, which is why I intend to stop the Left’s tyranny in its tracks by eliminating the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.”

Background:

Currently, an excise tax is applied at the manufacturer level for every firearm and all ammunition sold in the United States that is purchased by anyone other than the Department of Defense and state/local law enforcement. This tax infringes on Americans' ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights and creates a dangerous opportunity for the government to weaponize taxation to price this unalienable right out of reach for most Americans — a threat that is materializing by the day. Recently, Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) introduced the Assault Weapons Excise Act, which would impose a 1,000% tax on semi-automatic weapons.

To restore the American people's Second Amendment liberties, Rep. Clyde's RETURN our Constitutional Rights Act will repeal excise taxes on firearms and ammunition, as well as bows and arrows.

Since the current firearms tax revenue funds beneficial programs under the Pittman-Robertson Act, such as hunter education and environmental care, this legislation redirects unallocated lease revenue generated by onshore and offshore energy development on federal lands, which currently flows into the general fund, to continue funding those important programs.

Original cosponsors include: Representatives Brian Babin (TX-36), Jim Banks (IN-03), Andy Biggs (AZ-05), Lauren Boebert (CO-03), Mike Bost (IL-12), Mo Brooks (AL-05), Tim Burchett (TN-02), Buddy Carter (GA-01), Madison Cawthorn (NC-11), Michael Cloud (TX-27), James Comer (KY-01), Warren Davidson (OH-08), Rodney Davis (IL-13), Scott DesJarlais (TN-04), Pat Fallon (TX-04), Drew Ferguson (GA-03), Michelle Fischbach (MN-07), Virginia Foxx (NC-05), Matt Gaetz (FL-01), Louie Gohmert (TX-01), Bob Good (VA-05), Paul Gosar (AZ-04), Sam Graves (MO-06), Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA-14), Morgan Griffith (VA-09), Glenn Grothman (WI06), Andy Harris (MD-01), Diana Harshbarger (TN-01), Jody Hice (GA-10), Clay Higgins (LA-03), Ronny Jackson (TX-13), Trent Kelly (MS-01), Doug LaMalfa (CA-01), Debbie Lesko (AZ-08), Barry Loudermilk (GA-11), Thomas Massie (KY-04), Brian Mast (FL-18), Mary Miller (IL-15), Barry Moore (AL-02), Markwayne Mullin (OK-02), Troy Nehls (TX-22), Ralph Norman (SC-05), Scott Perry (PA-04), Matt Rosendale (MT-At-Large), Chip Roy (TX-21), John Rutherford (FL-04), Jason Smith (MO-08), Elise Stefanik (NY-21), Greg Steube (FL-17), Van Taylor (TX-03), Tom Tiffany (WI-07), Joe Wilson (SC-02), and Randy Weber (TX-14).

Full text of the RETURN our Constitutional Rights Act can be found HERE.
 

MtnElk

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2022
Messages
237
Location
Conifer
Still a frightening number of cosponsors. Why would anyone support this?
If I had to guess.... it's positioning themselves as mega pro guns, in advance of any gun control legislation that is coming up for a vote. Even though it's not going to go anywhere; more waste of time positioning than anything / inspiration for future fundraising as pro 2a
 

FI460

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2018
Messages
791
Location
Ashland, OR
Still a frightening number of cosponsors. Why would anyone support this?
If I had to guess.... it's positioning themselves as mega pro guns, in advance of any gun control legislation that is coming up for a vote. Even though it's not going to go anywhere; more waste of time positioning than anything / inspiration for future fundraising as pro 2a

Guns = Good
Taxes = Bad
Critical thinking = Nonexistent
 

wllm

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
14,989
Location
Boston
A who’s who list of people that are not serious about the elected office they hold and think representing the people means posting a one liner on social media attacking the other party.

Are these the dumbest of times? It sure feels like it.
Hey at least my home district is #1 in the country for something....
 

rwc101

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2019
Messages
3,917
Location
WY
About 1/3 of gun owners say they "often" or "sometimes" go hunting. The average gun and ammunition buyer might not give a toss about conservation which is what worries me.

 

drexal

Well-known member
Joined
May 4, 2021
Messages
212
About 1/3 of gun owners say they "often" or "sometimes" go hunting. The average gun and ammunition buyer might not give a toss about conservation which is what worries me.



To add to this problem, a large portion of hunters are indifferent and sometimes even hostile to non-hunting ownership of firearms. I've heard it here on this forum, on other forums and at the range. Non-hunting target shooters are growing tired of getting beat up by fellow gun-owners. In my experience, target shooters spend a lot more on guns and ammo than hunters do. In relation to items that fund conservation, I personally spend way more on target shooting than hunting and I spend my fair share on hunting. I'm not here in support of eliminating the excise tax (I truly believe that would be a bad idea), but the "play here, pay here" model doesn't hold up if most of the payers are not playing...
 

wllm

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
14,989
Location
Boston
To add to this problem, a large portion of hunters are indifferent and sometimes even hostile to non-hunting ownership of firearms. I've heard it here on this forum, on other forums and at the range. Non-hunting target shooters are growing tired of getting beat up by fellow gun-owners. In my experience, target shooters spend a lot more on guns and ammo than hunters do. In relation to items that fund conservation, I personally spend way more on target shooting than hunting and I spend my fair share on hunting. I'm not here in support of eliminating the excise tax (I truly believe that would be a bad idea), but the "play here, pay here" model doesn't hold up if most of the payers are not playing...

In 2020 PR was amended to allow states and the fed to use funds to promote shooting and build shooting ranges.
 
Last edited:

drexal

Well-known member
Joined
May 4, 2021
Messages
212
In 2020 PR was amended to allow states and the fed to use funds to promote shooting and build shooting ranges.
That's all cool but it's a small bone thrown at target shooters who are providing a larger and larger portion of conservation funding through the excise tax. Over the last decade, recreational shooting has flourished even without PR funds. In contrast, hunter numbers have flatline over the last decade.
 

wllm

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
14,989
Location
Boston
In contrast, hunter numbers have flatline over the last decade.
Might want to talk to some folks about that...

That's all cool but it's a small bone thrown at target shooters who are providing a larger and larger portion of conservation funding through the excise tax.
I agree to some extent.

Though it has nothing to do with the original intent of PR, honestly I can't think of a more bipartisan well thought out and crafted law and it's a great thing to point to in terms of the societal benefits of shooting, and of hunting and of folks paying it forward to protect a resource.

In a similar vein the Land and Water Conservation Fund doesn't benefit Oil companies nor promote drilling.

Also just being honest here, there is no argument you can make that would sway me in my belief that this is reckless populism, it's gonna get some votes for a few folks in the near term but has some pretty crappy consequence for this country in the long term.
 
Yeti

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
101,729
Messages
1,627,847
Members
31,811
Latest member
monkbuilder
Top