OpenCongress Blog

Blog Feed Comments Feed More RSS Feeds

The Secret Government Plot To Tax Firearms (That Doesn't Exist)

August 20, 2009 - by Avelino Maestas

<img src=http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3545/3357824695_ed3172e63f_b.jpg alt=“Gun Collection”>

Over the past six months or so, I’ve seen an occasional e-mail about SB 2099, a bill that would supposedly require gun owners to declare their firearms on tax forms. During the past few days, however, the volume of questions about the bill has increased. So, I thought I would write a bit about SB 2099 to try and set the record straight.

When I first received an e-mail about the SB 2099, I knew there was no bill by that number in the Senate. If you take a look at the Bills page on OpenCongress right now, and click the button for Senate bills, you’ll see that the most recent legislation introduced is S. 1648. So, naturally, I turned to Google. This article from Urban Legends was the first result:

Description: Email rumor
Circulating since: Sep. 2000
Status: Outdated / False

The good people at Urban Legends do an incredible job debunking the claims made by the e-mail that’s circulating around, and even go so far as linking to a statement released by the National Rifle Association earlier this year:

Like many rumors, there’s just a grain of truth to this one. Someone’s recycling an old alert, which wasn’t even very accurate when it was new.

There actually was a U.S. Senate bill with that number that would have taxed handguns—nine years ago. It was introduced by anti-gun Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), and it would have included handguns under the National Firearms Act’s tax and registration scheme. This has nothing to do with anyone’s Form 1040, of course.

Back in 2000, the NRA didn’t even encourage their members to work against the bill, recognizing (as Sen. Reed did) the legislation had no chance of being passed out of committee.

In short, an inaccurate rumor from 2000 is still running the rounds today, and still scaring people into writing the NRA and their lawmakers to stop it, despite ample evidence to the contrary.

Image used under a creative commons license by Jason Sansone.

Like this post? Stay in touch by following us on Twitter, joining us on Facebook, or by Subscribing with RSS.
 

Comments

acerr 02/15/2012 9:50pm

Using the development from the international trade, plenty of organization select to sell goods on the web.nike air max 95 They display a great deal of goods imformation on the web. And we are able to location orders on the internet simply. Even though a lot of folks acquire points on the net, I do not like getting points directly on the internet.air max 90 For the opposite, I like acquiring points in the marketplace. I do not forget that last time I purchased a pair of Nike sportswear on the web was two years ago.

Justin84119 09/04/2009 7:52pm

I think that further gun control will be the begining of the end.The constituion is already is a matter of legal oppinion,which means at somepoint or another all of our rights will be gone or restricted so badly they’ll have no meaning at all.So keep it great lawyers and polotitions of the nation I’m sure my children won’t mind free communisum or what ever you want to call it.

Avelino_Maestas 08/20/2009 12:17pm
in reply to oderintdummetuant Aug 20, 2009 11:58am

oderintdummetuant, H.R. 45 is the gun-registration legislation introduced this year that has no chance of passing out of committee.

oderintdummetuant 08/20/2009 11:58am

Do me a favor and talk about H.R. 45

Anonymous 08/27/2009 5:20am

I hope for the sake of every citizen in this country and their safety that no gun control legislation is ever passed whereby private ownership and the private use of firearms is prohibited. You cannot especially have our young men serving two, three, and four tours of duty in a combat zone come home and be stripped of their right to defend themselves after having served the corporations through the barrels of government issued “guns.”
When I returned from Viet Nam I was 19 and a decorated “booney rat” and I could not vote or buy a hard drink in a bar. I am referring to a Democracy whereby those in power serve the “special interest” groups instead of the people.
I still read “We the people,” but it seems it is only on paper so I’m going on paper myself just for the ‘halibut.’

Anonymous 08/21/2009 4:30pm
in reply to Avelino_Maestas Aug 20, 2009 12:17pm

Agreed H.R. 45 would be suicide to all involved, their is not a single co-sponsor, it was wrote by a felon just trying to get attention, even the known anti-gun members of congress is avoiding this bill like the plague.

Democratic leaders are trying to stay clear of gun control issues thats how they lost power last time and are still a little gun shy on the issue. They still won’t your guns they just don’t have the balls to ask for them right now. What to watch or is a columbine situation that could force a fast vote on ridicules legislation.

rogerlmartin 12/14/2009 1:09pm

snopes.com agrees it is a false claim.
However i do tend to agree with anonymous (HMM strange name) that making the fuel for the vehicle harder to obtain will be in order with this administration.

Anonymous 10/08/2009 2:26am

I got NEWS for you “lame-ducks”…. they are not coming to take the guns…….but just watch what they do to the ammo………

Spam Comment

sander 09/11/2009 6:43pm
Link Reply
+ -1

go to snopes.com\politics\guns\taxreturns.asp senate bill#2099 will become public knowledge 30 days after is has passed as an amendment to the Internal Revenue Act of 1986 which means that the Finance Committee can pass this without the Senate voting on it. Wake up and speak your mind before it is too late.

Due to the archiving of this blog, comment posting has been disabled.