warpedskydiver 0 #126 February 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWell all right then - infringe upon everyone's constitutional rights equally. Where in your constitution does it say that you have a right to tax-free bullets? They are already taxed Jamille, this is just a case of piling on. Like gas, booze, tobacco... Where does it say piling on is not allowed? Just wait until they tax skydiving out of existance, who will cry for you then? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #127 February 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo, you feel that taxes by the county shouldn't be setup to help with the budget issues that directly impact the health of the population? Certainly they should, but not in areas where they infringe upon constitutional rights.Then I feel they should tax ammo to help with that as I don't see how its anymore illegal than any of the other taxes in this county Did you like it when the cook county board paid 20 million dollars to rename Cook County Hosptal to Stroeger Hospital? Oh thats right!! The name change saved lives. well at least they were thinking only of the less fortunate. Those fucking pieces of shit belong in prison, not office. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #128 February 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo, you feel that taxes by the county shouldn't be setup to help with the budget issues that directly impact the health of the population? Certainly they should, but not in areas where they infringe upon constitutional rights.Then I feel they should tax ammo to help with that as I don't see how its anymore illegal than any of the other taxes in this county Did you like it when the cook county board paid 20 million dollars to rename Cook County Hosptal to Stroeger Hospital? Oh thats right!! The name change saved lives. well at least they were thinking only of the less fortunate. Those fucking pieces of shit belong in prison, not office. No, I didn't like or support it, nor did I vote for Stroeger. It's even better that he has promoted his cousin to be in charge of finances for the county as well :/ I can't wait till the axe comes down....there is so much corruption in this state its terrible. At least they finally went after ryan and a bunch inside city hall._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #129 February 14, 2007 What is needed in Illinois is a purge of corrupt politicians, by force if neccessary. Fucking Thieves and Oppressors. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,147 #130 February 14, 2007 QuoteThe Supreme Court decision on poll taxes seems relevent here. Only if the tax was for bearing arms, but it isn't. As Bill indicated above, they are not similar situations. Your constitution grants you the right to bear arms, not the right to acquire those arms cheaply or tax free, or at a limited tax. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #131 February 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteThe Supreme Court decision on poll taxes seems relevent here. Only if the tax was for bearing arms, but it isn't. As Bill indicated above, they are not similar situations. Bill's thesis is that the government would never implement a tax so high that it would discourage gun use, because that would result in a loss of revenue. I can't say I believe such a simplistic notion of government greed will prove true. It has frequently made revenue losing decisions on matters of belief/morality (see the abstinence only sex ed funding) He's right, a 25% tax would stand muster. But the tax is 100-2500% depending on the rate (10 versus 50 cents, .22 versus .45) Such a tax would clearly intefere with the right to bear arms, for that right is pointless without the ability to train. (See the well-regulated bit) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,438 #132 February 14, 2007 >Such a tax would clearly intefere with the right to bear arms, for that > right is pointless without the ability to train. (See the well-regulated > bit) That's going to be an unsupportable argument. By that argument, there could be no zoning laws that prevent shooting ranges in certain areas, because then people would be "denied the ability to train," or (as in the parallel with the bullet tax) be forced to endure hardship (like spending more or driving further) to get their training in. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,147 #133 February 14, 2007 Quotewell-regulated Does that mean trained? What exactly is the definiton of militia anyways? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #134 February 14, 2007 Quote>Such a tax would clearly intefere with the right to bear arms, for that > right is pointless without the ability to train. (See the well-regulated > bit) That's going to be an unsupportable argument. By that argument, there could be no zoning laws that prevent shooting ranges in certain areas, because then people would be "denied the ability to train," or (as in the parallel with the bullet tax) be forced to endure hardship (like spending more or driving further) to get their training in. There's a huge difference between: "can't shoot in a park used by people" and "can't shoot anywhere within 100 miles of San Francisco." The success of the gun control movement around here has really been focused on shutting down gun stores. With Traders getting closed by the ATF last year for questionable cause, the last of the big stores is gone. We still have gun ranges in South San Francisco, San Leandro, and Milpitas (and a few more that I haven't gone to) - those 3 cover nearly all of the millions in the Bay Area with a driving distance of less than 25 miles. It is a potential danger, however. Collectively, ranges could be zoned out since they're private businesses and they might get tired of moving about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #135 February 14, 2007 Dude--just go buy ammo in Lake Cty, DuPage Cty, Kane Cty, or Will Cty.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,438 #136 February 14, 2007 >There's a huge difference between: "can't shoot in a park used by >people" and "can't shoot anywhere within 100 miles of San Francisco." Just as there's a huge difference between "can't buy bullets" and "you have to pay more tax on them." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craddock 0 #137 February 14, 2007 Just to put this in perspective of how much a tax this really is... I went to the range two weeks ago and picked up 700 rounds on the way. I had plenty of .45 so I bought a WWB Value pack(100) of 9MM, and a Federal Value Pack(500) of .22, plus two 50 cnt. boxes of Federal Champion .22. ( Just put together a new 10-22) Total cost on this was around $26.50 including tax. ($12+$9+2x$2). The proposed .50 cent tax would add on $350 to the purchase. I can not see how anyone would continue to purchase ammo in that area and would think it would cost the city tax revenue.(not very much). That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #138 February 14, 2007 Quote There's a huge difference between: "can't shoot in a park used by people" and "can't shoot anywhere within 100 miles of San Francisco." There are similar laws about establishments where you gather: Casino's, Bars, Strip Clubs. How is that any different?_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #139 February 15, 2007 QuoteQuote There's a huge difference between: "can't shoot in a park used by people" and "can't shoot anywhere within 100 miles of San Francisco." There are similar laws about establishments where you gather: Casino's, Bars, Strip Clubs. How is that any different? Gambling isn't in the Bill of Rights. Sheesh, it's fucking circular here. But there's no lack of bars, strip clubs, or casinos, either, so I'm not sure what your point is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #140 February 16, 2007 So one of the County's next to Cook County voted on a new tax this week - a 50% increase. Do you feel that this is a bad thing as well? Are you going to beat on the drums of war over this? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/west/chi-0702140086feb14,1,6434101,print.story?coll=chi-newslocalwest-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true Kane OKs higher fuel tax But 2-cent increase might exclude diesel By William Presecky Tribune staff reporter February 14, 2007 After the Kane County Board voted Tuesday to increase the county tax on motor fuel to 4 cents a gallon, some truck-stop owners predicted the increase could force them to close. To address the owners' concerns, the board agreed to reconsider whether diesel, biodiesel and ethanol-mix fuels should be exempt from the 2-cent increase to the county's 2-cent tax. The increase, which takes effect April 1, is expected to provide an additional $4.6 million annually to the county's highway-improvement fund. Kane is joining neighboring DuPage and McHenry Counties in assessing the full 4-cents-a-gallon county fuel tax allowed by state law since 1990. Operators of two truck stops near Interstate Highway 90 in Hampshire strongly objected to the increase. "I see a 20-percent reduction in my business," TravelCenters of America district manager Drew Kortyna said. "Worst-case scenario, we close," he said. A $1.7 million upgrade proposed for the Road Ranger truck stop on U.S. Highway 20 and I-90, in far northwestern Kane, will have to be reconsidered in light of the increase, a company spokesman testified. The two Hampshire truck stops cater largely to long-haul truckers and, combined, sold nearly 10.5 million gallons of diesel fuel and, including ancillary sales, generated more than $230,000 in sales taxes for Hampshire, said Mayor Jeffrey Magnussen. In deference to the truck stop operators, County Board Transportation Committee chairman Jan Carlson (R-Elburn) said the committee will consider exempting diesel and other special fuels from the tax increase. Kane has collected about $57 million in local-option fuel taxes since it began collecting a 2-cent-a-gallon fee more than 15 years ago. The current annual cost just to maintain county roads is about $10 million. "We have a major crisis in terms of transportation funding," said board member John Hoscheit (R-St. Charles), who argued in support of the increase. "We are millions of dollars short ... just [for planned improvements] to keep traffic at the current flow," he said. "I'm concerned we are going to tax people out of the county," said board member Deborah Allan (R-Elgin) who, along with board member John Noverini (R-Carpentersville) was one of two Republicans to vote against the increase. They were joined by three Democrats, including board member Bonnie Kunkel (D-Aurora) who said the increase will fall disproportionately on the people least able to afford it. Kunkel challenged the majority of board members' belief that the increase will have little or no effect on pump prices, which are driven largely by market forces. In support of the proposed increase, Carlson and others had argued that pump prices in DuPage County, where a 4-cent-a-gallon tax has been in place, closely mirrored and in some case were lower than in Kane County, with its 2-cent tax._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #141 February 16, 2007 Are you seriously trying to equate a 1% increase in cost with a 100-500% one? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,653 #142 February 16, 2007 QuoteAre you seriously trying to equate a 1% increase in cost with a 100-500% one? How about the Bush administration's proposal to raise the tax on aviation fuel by 268%. Why no outrage over that?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #143 February 16, 2007 QuoteAre you seriously trying to equate a 1% increase in cost with a 100-500% one? It's a 50% increase in the tax/gallon. This change will DIRECTLY impact every business in Kane County as those over the road costs will be directed back to the consumers in raised product costs. Yes, I am comparing it and saying this is far more of an issue than a tax on ammo._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #144 February 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteAre you seriously trying to equate a 1% increase in cost with a 100-500% one? It's a 50% increase in the tax/gallon. This change will DIRECTLY impact every business in Kane County as those over the road costs will be directed back to the consumers in raised product costs. Yes, I am comparing it and saying this is far more of an issue than a tax on ammo. A gallon of gas costs over $2. The tax increase is 2 cents per gallon. Therefore, the total cost increase is less than 1%. BFD. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #145 February 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteAre you seriously trying to equate a 1% increase in cost with a 100-500% one? It's a 50% increase in the tax/gallon. This change will DIRECTLY impact every business in Kane County as those over the road costs will be directed back to the consumers in raised product costs. Yes, I am comparing it and saying this is far more of an issue than a tax on ammo. A gallon of gas costs over $2. The tax increase is 2 cents per gallon. Therefore, the total cost increase is less than 1%. BFD. Great thing about percentages, you can look at them however you want, eh? BFD? Apparently it is if county board members say: "I'm concerned we are going to tax people out of the county," and two of the biggest transportion/fuel spots in the county are concerned they will close from it. I gues the uproar on the ammo was yet another NIMBY sceanrio._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,653 #146 February 16, 2007 Why's youses still discussing a proposal that died a week ago. It's moot. Translating it from Chicagoese to redneck: Why're all y'all still discussing a proposal that died a week ago. It's mute.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #147 February 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteAre you seriously trying to equate a 1% increase in cost with a 100-500% one? How about the Bush administration's proposal to raise the tax on aviation fuel by 268%. Why no outrage over that? I just saw it!? Yeah, kicking it up 50cents a gallon is pretty steep (though still only a 20% type increase) and without clear reasons for it. Is the aviation tax not meeting needs? Those sort of fuel taxes seem to be more about the general fund than the need they're supposed to serve. California has a green tax on fuel for offroading that was supposed to pay for the trail access, but instead for years was just treated as revenue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
