TexasCHLforum.com

A pro-gun bill was just signed by President Obama and I'm sure it was painful for him. The subject matter of the bill has no great media appeal and it certainly doesn't rise to the heights of Heller or McDonand. For ammunition and firearms manufactures, however, it was a watershed moment. Prior to passage of Federal Excise Tax Improvement Act of 2010 (H.R. 5552), every manufacturer of guns and ammo had to pay federal excise taxes to the government every two weeks, rather than quarterly as do every other manufacturer in the country. The guns and ammo industry is hardly large in the overall U.S. economy, so the only reason those manufacturers were required to pay taxes every two weeks was harassment pure and simple.

The vote came in the House last week and the measure passed by a record margin of 412 to 6. (Now I'm going to skewer a sacred cow.) Guess who was among the 6 "nay" votes on this NRA-backed measure. You guessed it, Texas' own allegedly pro-gun Congressman Ron Paul. He was joined by some of the Who's Who of House anti-gunners John Conyers (D-MI), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), and Maxine "I'm under investigation" Waters (D-CA).

Now I know some of you Ron Paul supporters are going to say he must have had a good reason and it must have had something to do with Constitutional principles. I'm not sure how easing a tax burden on the single industry singled out for unfair treatment would offend constitutional sensibilities, but I'm sure Congressman Paul will come up with something. The simple fact is this, regardless of his motives, if Congressman Paul had his way manufacturers of guns and ammo would still be having to file reports with and cut checks to the federal government every two weeks, while the rest of the manufacturers in the country do this every three months.

I understand that principles are vital to the American way of life and I also realize that those principles have been observed primarily in the breach for a very long time. However, this latest vote by Congressman Paul shows the danger of having a Congressman driven purely on principle while ignoring present day suffering. One need not abandon the former to address the latter. In this case, that suffering involves "only" paperwork and money, but often the stakes are much higher. Recall that Congressman Paul also voted against the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that shields firearms manufacturers and firearms dealers from frivolous, politically-motivated lawsuits. So the only two recent bills aiding the firearms industry were opposed by Congressman Paul; a man hailed by many as a "true pro-gun Congressman."

I don't want my Representative to have his head stuck in the clouds; I want his butt down in the trenches fighting with the rest of us.

Chas.

I've found Ron Paul to be a nutcase.

Enjoy that sacred cow, Mr. Cotton.

I'm going to ask him what he was thinking.

I am just reading the second in a series of biographies of Theodore Roosevelt, and am finding the accounts of legislative deals and such, including the buying and selling of votes on bills, fascinating, and people voting for or against a bill "on principle" when they knew that their vote was not going to have any effect on the outcome. I wonder if that might be Mr. Paul's excuse.

It doesn't make any sense! Ron Paul to be consistant with his Constitutional and libertarian views should understand that a punitive tax policy is wrong even before considering the RKBA

The Annoyed Man wrote:I've found Ron Paul to be a nutcase.

I somewhat agree. I view him as the conservative ying to the liberal Ralph Nader. Both serve a very important purpose, and both are unyielding to their principles, even if they can make further progress to important things they claim to care about.

Both are "useful idiots" as my girlfriend calls them.

And props to Obama for signing yet another pro gun piece of legislation (The parks bit attached to the credit card bill being another good one)

I hope Obama keeps up his current track record of annoying anti-gun groups and passing more pro-gun legislation, whatever his reason may be.

Thanks to the work of so many people, and orgs like the NRA (even though I'm still annoyed at them) it's been made clear to most politicians that guns are not a wedge issue that will work for them. I think Obama's actions on guns as President has so far proven that, and I hope continues to do so.

This is why it's important to support organizations like the NRA (and even my other pet org, the ACLU) who work to keep your rights intact, even if you do not agree with everything they do. I certainly don't, but they get a check from me every year, as well as my support when they ask for it.

I surely hope the next POTUS election has a candidate and a platform to vote for rather than a candidate to vote against.

Thanks for this info, Chas.

If someone could explain to me what the principles are that Ron Paul is standing for, it sure would help me understand why he takes some of the positions he takes. Because I can't seems to fit him into any of the normal buckets. He's not a conservative. He's not a libertarian. He's definitely not a Republican. I guess contrarian comes closest to describing him.

I know this happened in summer 2010, but I thought some contrary opinion was necessary here.

The bill's text can supposedly be found at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin ... nr.txt.pdf

Only section 2 (a few brief paragraphs that make up less than half of the first page) has anything to do with adjusting the timing of excise tax payments.

Sections 3 ("ASSESSMENT OF CERTAIN CRIMINAL RESTITUTION") and 4 ("BUDGETARY PROVISIONS") take up the bulk of the text, do not contain the word "gun", "firearm", or "excise", and upon first blush do not appear to have direct bearing upon the collection of excise tax levied upon firearms and ammunition.

Section 3 references and amends Internal Revenue Code of 1986, Section 6201, subsection (a), and Section 6213, subsection (b), among others.

Section 4 makes an adjustment to the HIRE Act.

My guess is Paul must have sensed a stinker in Sections 3 and/or 4 that prompted him to vote against the whole package. Possibly he is simply tired of the NRA trying to tell him how to vote---but I doubt the NRA tries to lobby him (and if so, I would not fault them for not trying).

yerasimos wrote:I know this happened in summer 2010, but I thought some contrary opinion was necessary here.

The bill's text can supposedly be found at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin ... nr.txt.pdf

Only section 2 (a few brief paragraphs that make up less than half of the first page) has anything to do with adjusting the timing of excise tax payments.

Sections 3 ("ASSESSMENT OF CERTAIN CRIMINAL RESTITUTION") and 4 ("BUDGETARY PROVISIONS") take up the bulk of the text, do not contain the word "gun", "firearm", or "excise", and upon first blush do not appear to have direct bearing upon the collection of excise tax levied upon firearms and ammunition.

Section 3 references and amends Internal Revenue Code of 1986, Section 6201, subsection (a), and Section 6213, subsection (b), among others.

Section 4 makes an adjustment to the HIRE Act.

My guess is Paul must have sensed a stinker in Sections 3 and/or 4 that prompted him to vote against the whole package. Possibly he is simply tired of the NRA trying to tell him how to vote---but I doubt the NRA tries to lobby him (and if so, I would not fault them for not trying).

I guess the Congressman (mine BTW) isn't interested in answering questions about why he voted against it. We can all guess, but I'd like to know why. Too bad his seat is so safe he doesn't feel he has to respond.

Chas.

jimlongley wrote:I'm going to ask him what he was thinking.

I am just reading the second in a series of biographies of Theodore Roosevelt, and am finding the accounts of legislative deals and such, including the buying and selling of votes on bills, fascinating, and people voting for or against a bill "on principle" when they knew that their vote was not going to have any effect on the outcome. I wonder if that might be Mr. Paul's excuse.

Happens all the time, Jim. For example, it is possible, if not likely, that days and dollars galore will be wasted in the House of Representatives while the new team debates repealing the administration's Health Care act, knowing full well that the Senate will stop the repeal.

Elmo