by Scott Creighton
Sometimes they inadvertently slip and tell you what the overall agenda really is and if you’re paying attention, if you might just be a conspiracy theorist or something, you catch ‘em.
This is not about keeping the “crazy” people from owning weapons or the “wrong” people. It’s not about getting these military style weapons off the streets either. It’s about reducing the number of privately owned weapons in this country by any means necessarily.
And then it’s also about adding another half trillion dollars to the deficit monster which will have to be paid by further cuts to social spending. You see, it’s a “win win“ (full text of the H.R. 226 after the break at the end of the article)
Rep. DeLauro, Rosa L. [D-CT-3] and bill co-sponsor Rep. Grijalva, Raul M. [D-AZ-3]* introduced House Bill 226 on 01/14/2013 which basically laid out a plan to have law abiding U.S. citizens “surrender” their legally owned firearms in exchange for a $2,000 tax credit spread out over 2 years ($1,000 per year)
The bill includes a list of the kinds of “assault rifles” they are going to offer the 2 grand for, which is interesting because it also includes things like various sniper rifles, a Spaz12 shotgun (tactical shotgun) and any semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine and a threaded barrel which is pretty much any decent rifle these days. Surely the list of weapons included on this list will expand as this bill works it’s way through congress.
But what’s really interesting about this bill is the language included in Sec. 25E (a)(1)
``SEC. 25E. ASSAULT WEAPON TURN-IN CREDIT.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of an individual who
surrenders a specified assault weapon to the United States or a
State or local government (or political subdivision thereof) as
part of a Federal, State, or local public safety program to
reduce the number of privately owned weapons, on the election
of the taxpayer there shall be allowed as a credit against the
tax imposed by this chapter an amount equal to $2,000.
That’s pretty straight forward folks. It’s right there on the government website.
They don’t care about keeping guns out of the hands of the “crazy” conspiracy theorists or the criminals as this law won’t payout those tax credits for guns that aren’t legally registered to the person who surrenders them.
This bill is about paying citizens $1,000 a year for two years if they turn in their legally owned firearms.
It’s about reducing the number of weapons in private hands. Period.
Below is the bill in it’s entirety.
Also think about this: the one to two hundred million guns out there that might fall into this category would cost between 200 billion and half a trillion to collect by the government. Last I checked they are already looking to cut spending because of the dreaded deficit monster.
So where is that money going to come from?
They will float this out there and claim they have to pay for it somehow, and it will be used to demolish even more of the social safety net in the country. Social programs will have to be sacrificed on the alter of the “greater good”
While we are talking about it, let’s talk about this as well: what do you think is going to happen to all of these military grade weapons once the government which ran Operation Gun Runner and Fast and Furious? The government that is currently arming various terrorist groups in countries across the globe for their own interests?
Do you really think they are going to destroy these things or do you think there will be this built-in smoke screen to divert these weapons to places like those 35 countries in Africa where we just sent our military advisers?
What is going to happen to these 100 million or so military grade weapons that the poor and unfortunate Americans are ultimately going to end up paying for?
—–
H.R.226 – Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act113th Congress (2013-2014)
Overview: House Bill
| Sponsor: | Rep. DeLauro, Rosa L. [D-CT-3] (Introduced 01/14/2013) |
|---|---|
| Cosponsors: | 1 |
| Latest Action: | 01/14/2013 Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. |
| Major Recorded Votes: | There are no Roll Call votes for this bill |
Status of Legislation:
This bill has the status {.Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:
- Introduced
- Passed House
- Passed Senate
- To President
- Became Law
Text: H.R.226 [113th]
There is one version of the bill.
Shown Here:
Introduced in House (01/13/2013)
[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.R. 226 Introduced in House (IH)]
113th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 226
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit against
tax for surrendering to authorities certain assault weapons.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 14, 2013
Ms. DeLauro (for herself and Mr. Grijalva) introduced the following
bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit against
tax for surrendering to authorities certain assault weapons.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Support Assault Firearms Elimination
and Reduction for our Streets Act''.
SEC. 2. ASSAULT WEAPON TURN-IN CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting before
section 26 the following new section:
``SEC. 25E. ASSAULT WEAPON TURN-IN CREDIT.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of an individual who
surrenders a specified assault weapon to the United States or a
State or local government (or political subdivision thereof) as
part of a Federal, State, or local public safety program to
reduce the number of privately owned weapons, on the election
of the taxpayer there shall be allowed as a credit against the
tax imposed by this chapter an amount equal to $2,000.
``(2) Year credit allowed.--The amount of the credit under
paragraph (1) shall be allowed \1/2\ for the taxable year
during which the assault weapon was so surrendered and \1/2\ in
the next taxable year.
``(b) Special Rules.--
``(1) Weapon must be lawfully possessed.--No credit shall
be allowed under subsection (a) with respect to any specified
assault weapon not lawfully possessed by the taxpayer at the
time the weapon is surrendered.
``(2) Substantiation requirement.--No credit shall be
allowed under subsection (a) for the surrender of any specified
assault weapon unless the taxpayer substantiates the surrender
by a contemporaneous written acknowledgment of the surrender by
the Federal, State, or local governmental entity to which the
weapon is surrendered.
``(3) Denial of double benefit.--The taxpayer may elect the
application of this section with respect to only 1 weapon, and
if such election is made for any taxable year, no deduction
shall be allowed under any other provision of this chapter with
respect to the surrender or contribution of the specified
assault weapon.
``(c) Assault Weapon.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `specified assault weapon'
means any of the following:
``(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates
thereof:
``(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM,
MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93,
VEPR,
``(ii) AR-10,
``(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite
M15, or Olympic Arms PCR,
``(iv) AR70,
``(v) Calico Liberty,
``(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or
Dragunov SVU,
``(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR,
or FNC,
``(viii) Hi-Point Carbine,
``(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1,
``(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle,
``(xi) M1 Carbine,
``(xii) Saiga,
``(xiii) SAR-8, SAR-4800,
``(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine,
``(xv) SLG 95,
``(xvi) SLR 95 or 96,
``(xvii) Steyr AUG,
``(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14,
``(xix) Tavor,
``(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or
Thompson 1927 Commando, or
``(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil
Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).
``(B) The following pistols or copies or duplicates
thereof:
``(i) Calico M-110,
``(ii) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3,
``(iii) Olympic Arms OA,
``(iv) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or
AB-10, or
``(v) Uzi.
``(C) The following shotguns or copies or
duplicates thereof:
``(i) Armscor 30 BG,
``(ii) SPAS 12 or LAW 12,
``(iii) Striker 12, or
``(iv) Streetsweeper.
``(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to
accept a detachable magazine, and that has--
``(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
``(ii) a threaded barrel,
``(iii) a pistol grip,
``(iv) a forward grip, or
``(v) a barrel shroud.
``(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), a
semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the
capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
``(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached
tubular device designed to accept, and capable of
operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
``(F) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability
to accept a detachable magazine, and has--
``(i) a second pistol grip,
``(ii) a threaded barrel,
``(iii) a barrel shroud, or
``(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable
magazine at a location outside of the pistol
grip.
``(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine
that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
``(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has--
``(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
``(ii) a pistol grip,
``(iii) the ability to accept a detachable
magazine, or
``(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more
than 5 rounds.
``(I) A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
``(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.
``(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally
designed for military or law enforcement use, or a
firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is
not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as
determined by the Attorney General. In making the
determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption
that a firearm procured for use by the United States
military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not
particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a
firearm shall not be determined to be particularly
suitable for sporting purposes solely because the
firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.
``(2) Related definitions.--
``(A) Barrel shroud.--The term `barrel shroud'
means a shroud that is attached to, or partially or
completely encircles, the barrel of a firearm so that
the shroud protects the user of the firearm from heat
generated by the barrel, but does not include a slide
that encloses the barrel, and does not include an
extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel
which does not encircle or substantially encircle the
barrel.
``(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.
``(C) Detachable magazine.--The term `detachable
magazine' means an ammunition feeding device that can
readily be inserted into a firearm.
``(D) Fixed magazine.--The term `fixed magazine'
means an ammunition feeding device contained in, or
permanently attached to, a firearm.
``(E) Folding or telescoping stock.--The term
`folding or telescoping stock' means a stock that
folds, telescopes, or otherwise operates to reduce the
length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise
enhances the concealability, of a firearm.
``(F) Forward grip.--The term `forward grip' means
a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as
a pistol grip.
``(G) Pistol grip.--The term `pistol grip' means a
grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic
that can function as a grip.
``(H) Threaded barrel.--The term `threaded barrel'
means a feature or characteristic that is designed in
such a manner to allow for the attachment of a firearm
as defined in section 5845(a) of the National Firearms
Act (26 U.S.C. 5845(a)).
``(d) Termination.--This section shall not apply with respect to
any weapon surrendered during a taxable year beginning more than 2
years after the date of the enactment of the Support Assault Firearms
Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart A of
part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by inserting before the
item relating to section 26 the following new item:
``Sec. 25E. Assault weapon turn-in credit.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall apply to
taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Every passing day, I watch new austerity unfold…
Every passing day, I suffer in silence…
Nobody wants truth; those who speak it must be punished…
Hey , there is some ‘light’…
??
it says the only one gun will be paid for! Guess that means that if a person has two,, then he gets to keep one for himself!
So this doesn’t mean they can confiscate them right? Only if we surrender them?
Rosa DeLauro pictured below is the wife of pollster and political strategist Stanley Greenberg, one of whose clients is Monsanto. DeLauro also sponsored HR 875, the pro-Monsanto bill in 2009. Any questions?
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Monsanto-s-dream-bill-HR-by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-090309-337.html
http://i771.photobucket.com/albums/xx355/Comrade0bama/Rosa_DeLauro.jpg
She’s a strange looking ‘one’….. she has at least 7 rings on one hand..and what has she done to her ear lobe?
She seems joyous about her ‘bill’… she is thrilled….
strange people we have in congress…..
Have you guys heard about these two mysterious deaths of popular online pro-gun advocates John Noveske and Keith Ratliff One of them is the 9th most popular person on youtube. The threat these guys pose is that they have a huge youth following.
Here is an article about them:
http://www.therightperspective.org/2013/01/10/gun-advocate-murders-spark-theories/
#NDAA2013 #Obamasecrethitlist
For the record, representative DeLauro is the “go to” Monsanto whore in congress. Just research her record.
No further comment is needed.
Too bad the American government is so awful and untrustworthy, because if ever there were a people who should have their guns taken away it’s the American people. I tend to think that for many gun-owners, they use the disguise of having guns for protection while really having them for power.
That idea actually shines a lot of light on the situation, relament. I never thought of it that way.
Also, I implore everyone to check out this article:
http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/01/a-gunless-revolution/
Excellent article, thank you!:)
Something strange happened last night. I was reading a thread from Godlike productions site about a comment MizzChrizzty23 made on Ryan Lanza’s youtube video, that said she and her mother saw him as the one being dragged out of the woods by the cops… Whether or not that was true, I expected to hear more of it this morning. There were three pages of comments and it was pinned. Today, I had a hard time finding that page. It is now only one page. The comments left by other people are stripped out, except for a few new ones at the end. Anyway this brings me back to all the strangeness surrounding Ryan Lanza… like why did they arrest him in New Jersey and show it all over the news? If you say he was only brought in for questioning, why does the video show him handcuffed? Kind of strange being that he was all the way in NJ.
Another thing, how do we have any witnesses at all of the shooter being pulled out of the woods? No one was allowed to go near the school, not even the ambulances. Was the man in the woods brought to a police car near the firehouse because the police cars near the school were blocked in?
[...] H.R. 226: Plan is “to reduce the number of privately owned weapons” (willyloman.wordpress.com) [...]
How tremendously stupid! For a gun in the $500-$1000 range, you get a $2000 tax credit. People will go buy a gun just to turn in. Also, most people who own the listed guns own plenty of other guns, too. The reduction wouldn’t be substantial, and they could more than use the money from the credit to replace the turned-in gun.
is this the Heather form Sandy Hook?
Nope, I live in Montana. And the above should NOT be taken as any variety of anti-gun comment, at all. I’m totally pro-2nd amendment. It’s one of the reasons I live in Montana. It’s merely commentary on the lack of logic of the Congresscretins involved.
Thank you for replying, Heather.
It’s just that there was a Heather who posted something over the weekend In the sandy hook thread, claiming she lived in Sandy Hook. More than likely, she was not the real deal, as she tried to explain away how it was,perfectly normal having people in the wooded area behind school because locals used it as a shortcut or something. Whether she was real or just a well poisoner, it did not seem like she had considered that whoever was there would have heard gunshots coming from the school, which must have echoed in the woods (I am imagining). Which, in my mind, automatically nullifies the shortcut argument.
Ayway, thanks again for replying.
This whole ordeal is a scare tactic! It’s obviously not their agenda to take weapons or keep anyone from owning them, I am a gun enthusiast ,hunter, sportsman,outdoorsman . I am pro 2A . The gun shows I have been to recently are the most crowded they’ve ever been! The biggest firearm salesman in the history of arms and amory is Obama!
If the anti gunners only knew how simple it is to make (not manufacture) guns their tiny Lil heads would explode! Anyone can buy a 80%ar15 lower receiver and drill a few well placed holes and have their own unmarked technically invisible to the ATF ar15 ! For less than 500$ complete! No numbers no registration completely legal!!!!
It’s not about guns just like gas prices aren’t about oil being scarce! They simply want more money and power. Now the disarming of civilians has been proven to be the best way to control the people! Since the biblical days weapon confiscation has lead to corrupted leaders and the fail of government! Listen to Paul Harvey you will learn a lot!
Cervicide out.
There’s a big difference between firearms and weapons/assault rifles. I own several firearms in multiple functionalities: semi-auto, bolt action, break-away, etc. None of which are considered assault rifles and work just fine for home security. Before reading between the lines, you should actually read whats on them. Bunch o’ right wing douche bags…
An “assault weapon” is a rifle that is either fully automatic (machine gun) or select-fire (fires fully automatic or semi-automatic). While it is possible for a civilian to own these in some states, it takes an extensive federal process to obtain the license to do so…and this has been the case for decades. These guns also have price tags well into 4 figures, and NO new ones have been allowed to enter the civilian market since 1986.
An “assault weapon”, as defined by those who wish to disarm civilians (and as defined by the expired and unlamented 1984 ban) is a weapon that LOOKS like a military firearm, but is in actuality a semi-automatic firearm, which fires only one round per trigger pull. This is why the old ban was known as the “ugly gun ban”. It banned firearms based solely on cosmetic features, none of which had any impact on their functioning. So capricious was it that you could have 2 different examples of the SAME MAKE AND MODEL OF FIREARM, and, based solely on how they were optioned, one would be banned and the other would not be.
they arm tactical teams going into close quarters urban combat with assault rifles for a reason; because they are the best thing out there at the time for that kind of encounter…. if you know how to use them. so making the claim that a bolt action is just as good is a bit stupid. When they start arming SWAT tactical and the Marine entry teams with a musket, you let me know.
Another point you seem to miss is the fact that if you look around this site a bit, you might just find I am quite a bit further left than you are. Now, don’t misunderstand me. If your measuring stick is simply “how much do I love Obama and worship anything he says?’ then, that ain’t gonna work. after all, as another leftie said just the other day, the American Democratic Party would be FAR RIGHT in Europe. And that is a fucking fact.
As too the last point you CLEARLY miss.
It doesn’t matter what YOU SAY should be enough for me or anyone else. I have a constitution for that as well as SEVERAL Supreme Court decisions and CURRENT LAW, thank you very much. Any ONE of those things supersedes your precious opinion, like it or not.
So you can go suck on your Obamateet and leave the heavy lifting to the adults, ok?
ok
He he…. I needed that laugh… good reply!