search
top

Dem House Member Proposes Tax Credit for Surrendered Assault Weapons

Rep Rosa DeLauro has proposed a law which would give anyone who turned in an “assault weapon” a $2000 tax credit for that year. Now is says credit, not deduction, so that would be a big fat check for 2 grand from the IRS! You’d only be able to turn in one assault weapon a year under this proposal. The definition is essentially the one feature test, so a lot of firearms will qualify.

Personally, I don’t see a problem with this. I would take advantage of it to get rid of some of my old firearms and trade up to better, newer models. This is an excellent federal program to help gun owners upgrade their collections! I am sure the gun makers, many of whom have left Connecticut, would benefit greatly from this program. With what I get from turning in an old AR-15, I could buy a new one with some nice optics, and decent amount of ammunition to go with it. Rep. DeLauro, you deserve a round of applause. Best idea of the year!

WellsMeme

27 Responses to “Dem House Member Proposes Tax Credit for Surrendered Assault Weapons”

  1. AnOregonian says:

    So it’s a gun cash-for-clunkers sort of deal? I have to admit, I did not see this one coming from a democrat.

  2. Stephen says:

    Sweet! So I can buy one $800 AR per year (or maybe something cheaper if it’s the single item test — like a 10/22) and make a nice profit?

    I’m in.

  3. Great Wall of Texas says:

    Would my $175 post ban MAK90 be in compliance or do I need to buy a compensator?

  4. Jdubski says:

    A Hi-point carbine qualifies, you can pick one of the old style ones up for $ 200!

  5. ARL says:

    This is a bad idea for several reasons:

    1. Constitutionally, the government has no power to do this.
    2. It gives the anti’s a “win”.
    3. It’s a short trip from “optional” to “mandatory”.

    • Sebastian says:

      I don’t think this proposal has a chance in hell of passing. I’m pointing out how poorly thought out it was.

      But if they had the votes to pass confiscation, they would. This is an act of desperation.

    • AnOregonian says:

      Agreed.

      Also…
      4. Short term economically, paying substantially over market value is not a good deal for the tax payer.
      5. Long term economically, $2K for anything becomes part of the market value, which then moves the price of guns, especially the least expensive such as 10/22s and hipoints, an unfavorable amount in an unfavorable direction.

      • ARL says:

        Exactly. This is basically Cash For Clunkers, only for guns. CFC was a total waste of money and really distorted the used car market. Making it more difficult for the poor to purchase firearms by distorting the firearms market would not be a good idea either.

        • Jeff O says:

          Final costs on cash for clunkers was just a bit over $56,000 for every auto purchased. That includes all the advertising, paperwork, manpower, and rebates from our extremely efficient government. I’m not sure about you guys, but per the old add slogan, “oh what a feeling”!

    • Ish says:

      The government has a rational basis for ensuring the unorganized militia is properly armed. So trading in a “clunker” rifle for something up to date does make some sense…

  6. FiftycalTX says:

    The stooped is strong with this one. NO need to lose a rifle. All you need to turn in is the receiver. We could probably do a group buy of 20-100 for $49 each. Of course “blems” will work fine with this also.

    • AnOregonian says:

      Though the stripped receivers won’t have the necessary number of evil features. We better do a group buy on pistol grips too :-D

  7. Don Gwinn says:

    Wish I’d had this option this year. I could have wiped out what I owed and even ended up with a slight return.

    • Jake says:

      Same here. Raises are great. Mid-year raises that unexpectedly move one up a tax bracket, however, come with complications.

  8. divemedic says:

    Read the law. There is some serious profit to be made here. It defines an assault weapon as (among other things):

    ‘(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L).
    (K) A conversion kit.

    (B) CONVERSION KIT.—The term ‘conversion kit’ means any part or combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a firearm into a semiautomatic assault weapon, and any combination of parts from which a semiautomatic assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

    The way I read this, if you are in possession of a lower parts kit for an AR, you are in possession of a “conversion kit” and can get the credit. A $50 lower parts kit becomes a $2,000 tax credit. Of course only one credit per year can be taken, and the credit only exists for two tax years, but that is still about $3900 in your pocket. The credit is spread across two tax years, so you would get $1000 the first year, $2000 the second, and then $1000 the third year.

    The problem that I see here is that this is some sort of “nose in the tent” for more legislation down the road.

  9. rd says:

    It sounds like it is one weapon every two years? (page 2 section (a)(2) and page 3 section (b)(3).

    I am sure that the fiscally responsible Republicans will reduce the benefits to a more reasonable level. So it won’t be $2,000.00 for a HiPoint Carbine, more like $100.00 to 200.00.

    I am ashamed that two of the Congress critters sponsoring this are from MN; Ditsy McCollum and Keith Ellison.

  10. weaserdapi says:

    I’m thinking “Married filing separately”!

  11. Patrick says:

    So let me get this right: The Federal Government is going to pay me to assemble cheap AR-15s in my garage?

    Sign me up.

    /snark

    Again, this is going nowhere fast but I agree with Sebastian – it’s a great example of how desperate they are. This is winning. The only thing that would make this better were if Bloomberg was fronting the money for the guns.

  12. Braden Lynch says:

    Let’s not overlook the obvious. There is no such thing as an “assault weapon” which is a made up term. So, I would turn in a straw and some paper spit wads and defy them to tell me it is not one.

  13. snoopycomputer says:

    Does this include printed lowers? The kind of simple one that can take 10 rnds of 22lr before cracking, but still work when all the parts are there? How cheap are those things?
    What about printed Sig 250 frames? Glock frames? Iron Glock frames?
    AK “shovel-receivers?”

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. A tax credit for surrendered assault weapons? - […] proposed legislation, probably without any real chance of passing. Sebastian comments: Shall Not Be QuestionedPersonally, I don’t see a…
top