Via Glenn Reynolds we have West Virginia lawmakers eliminate permits for concealed carry guns. But what I really latched onto was this:
…the proposed law includes a $50 tax credit for residents trained to carry a deadly weapon.
In Washington State the pro-gun people proposed a bill which eliminated sales tax (near 10%) on gun safes. The anti-gun people were put in a tough spot. If they opposed the bill they were against “gun safety”. But if they agreed they were lowering the cost of gun ownership. The bill was passed and gun safes became less expensive in Washington.
Why don’t the pro-gun people propose tax credits on all “gun (safety)” classes? And how about removing sales tax on “public carry holsters” which resist guns being taken away or accidently dropped? And removing taxes on “practice ammo” for guns which people who carry in public?
These proposed laws would put the anti-gun people in a difficult position when trying to oppose them. And, if passed, it would lower the cost of gun ownership, increase gun ownership and use, which would make it easier to change our culture to be more accepting of gun owners.
That does sort of go along the lines of the national Civilian Marksmanship Program, the intent of which was to enhance martial skills and equipment among the general population by selling surplus military arms at reduced prices to those who participate in qualifying training programs or competitions.
I’m torn though, as it smacks of Progressivism, micro-managing the culture as it does. The full recognition and enforcement of the second amendment (i.e. hands off – it’s out of jurisdiction) should be enough. Some would see such incentive programs as a step in the right direction, and that would be hard to argue with, but then they should be treated as temporary measures, pending full restoration of the Bill of Rights including the arrest and prosecution of violators.
Anyway; given that an armed (legally unfettered as such) society is a polite (less violent) society, then yes; armed citizens pay their own way to eventually make society safer for everyone, just as the second amendment states; “…being necessary for the security of a free state”. The minimum concession would be to leave us the heaven alone, so I’d like to start there– That’s the Ideal and we’d do well to remember it.
The Progressive way says that that which is good should be subsidized and that which is bad should be banned, meaning the government runs everything, while the American way says stay out of the way and watch the “magic” happen. Which way are we looking?
Please note that I’m not advocating subsides. I’m advocating the reduction or elimination of taxes. Remember what Milton Friedman had to say about the justification of tax reductions.
There are times we have to play the hand we are dealt. Going all the way, all at once, gets blocked. Incremental approaches, while aggravatingly slow and expensive and absurd from a fundamental rights level, so eventually advance toward the major goal of more freedom. So, while I see what you are saying, and generally agree, as a practicle matter this makes life a little beater while moving the Overton Window the right way.
Yes; if I’m thirsty I think first of the well. Now my path is clearly known to me, and every small step I take is toward achieving that destination. If I’m diverted for some reason beyond my control, forced to take a circuitous route, the destination remains nonetheless clear. If I have to slay a hyena along the way, I’ll not become distracted with the slaying of hyenas, adopt it as my new mission in life, and so die of thirst.
I agree with you. As was said before; keep your eyes on the prize.
Well, along with the tax reduction for “retention holsters” would come the requirement to use them. It’s not a big stretch from telling you what holster you can use to telling you what pistol you can put in it. As an incremental step to getting more guns into the hands of more law abiding citizens, it might work, but the lefties are pretty good at hijacking (like kalifornia?). Ya pays yer money and takes yer chances…
The ultimate goal is still “shall not be infringed…” It doesn’t get any more black and white than that. “Gubmint”…, leave us alone!
Pingback: Weekly Gun News – Edition 29 | Shall Not Be Questioned