Sharon Wylie Wants Your Guns

by lewwaters

Sharon Wylie49th Legislative District Representative, Democrat Sharon Wylie has joined with 13 other Democrats in sponsoring a bill they claim is for “Promoting firearm safety through an education program funded through fees on firearms and ammunition and creating a sales tax exemption on gun locks.”

The bill, House Bill 1703 calls for implementing taxes and fees on sales of guns and ammunition within the state citing the need to fund an “education program” designed to reduce gun deaths in Washington State.

To do this, every gun sold will have a $25 fee attached per sale and ammunition would be charged a one cent tax per round.

The bill states within,

“Public health approaches to reducing both motor vehicle crashes and tobacco deaths have been highly successful and the legislature believes that using public health approaches to reducing gun violence and gun deaths will also result in success.”

If you will recall, those “successful efforts” amounted to incrementally increasing taxes on the sales of primarily tobacco and were actually designed to force people to stop smoking, also cited as funding some program to benefit children and the ‘common good.’

In plainer language, they were actually meant to bring about “changes in social behavior” as Vancouver City Council Member Jeanne Harris once put it.

By making something cost prohibitive, you stop purchasing and using it.

Once again, we see 14 Democrats, Rep. Laurie Jinkins 27th Legislative District; Rep. Jessyn Farrell 46th Legislative District; Rep. Jeff Morris 40th Legislative District; Rep. Eileen Cody 34th Legislative District; Rep. Ruth Kagi 32nd Legislative District; Rep. Sharon Wylie Assistant 49th Legislative District; Rep. Mary Helen Roberts 21st Legislative District; Rep. Gerry Pollet 46th Legislative District; Rep. Cindy Ryu 32nd Legislative District; Rep. Steve Bergquist 11th Legislative District; Rep. Jake Fey 27th Legislative District; Rep. Sam Hunt 22nd Legislative District; Rep. Gael Tarleton 36th Legislative District and Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon 34th Legislative District sponsoring yet another effort to raise a smoke screen, claiming some pressing need to raise your expenses and potentially inhibit your ability to defend yourselves.

Citing statistics from 2006 and 2008 they paint a picture of people dying all over the state due to mishandling of guns by their owners. But, according to later FBI Data gun related deaths have been steadily decreasing all across the country.

Comparatively speaking, Washington State has a fairly low gun death rate, ranking 35th with a rate of 9.1 per one hundred thousand death rate.

The bill also states,

“The presence of a household firearm is also linked with an increased risk of adults and adolescents using a firearm to attempt suicide”

A major problem with such a claim is revealed in a more recent study that appeared in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy that stated,

“in noting that the presence of a gun in a home corresponds to a higher risk of suicide, apparently assume that if denied firearms, potential suicides will decide to live rather than turning to the numerous alternative suicide mechanisms. The evidence, however, indicates that denying one particular means to people who are motivated to commit suicide by social, economic, cultural, or other circumstances simply pushes them to some other means.”

The study also states,

“There is simply no relationship evident between the extent of suicide and the extent of gun ownership. People do not commit suicide because they have guns available. In the absence of firearms, people who are inclined to commit suicide kill themselves some other way.”

I also find it quite odd that the Democrats express such concern today over suicide, but not that long ago they championed and passed a bill legalizing “assisted suicide” in our state.

Article 1 Section 24 of our state constitution reads, “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.”

Democrats know they would face very stiff opposition if they tried to outright impose restrictions on our right to own a firearm, but as they have in the past, if they bring in measure incrementally they can accomplish just that goal.

We have seen it with tobacco, alcohol and even homosexual marriage. Do just a small amount and then later, add a little more while desensitizing the public and before we realize it, they have effected a major change of their choosing, not ours.

Adding what for now appears to be a modest fee and tax on gun sales and ammunition, promoting as for “the children” and “household safety” amounts to just one more effort by Democrats to eventually circumvent the constitution and impair our right to defend ourselves, making it a privilege as long as we pay them an extra fee.

I see nothing in the bill that makes a distinction between new and second-hand gun sales. Those of you who reload your own ammunition are not exempted from the tax on ammo either as the bill defines ammunition as “cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellant powder designed for use in any firearm.”

While there is no provision in the bill for any type of gun registration, might we see in the future such a call to register and pay the state a yearly fee in order to exercise our right to self defense?

Let us not be fooled by this call once again of a need to “protect children, abused wives and ourselves” by allowing Democrats like Sharon Wylie to impose yet another tax on us that will lead to our right being impaired.

10 Comments to “Sharon Wylie Wants Your Guns”

  1. We see it for what it is. Given the empty suit shilling it, it’s likely DOA.

    Like

  2. The power to tax is the power to destroy.* A small tax can more easily be raised to be a very high tax. The government has used this procedure in the past. At one time (for example) marijuana was not directly illegal. However a very substantial tax on the sale of cannabis was enacted (in 1937). This tax also “killed” the production of hemp (used as a fiber source for rope and other products).

    So, a “small” tax of $25 on a purchase of a gun and 1 cent per round of ammunition can eventually be raised to prohibitive levels — or a new annual tax on firearms owned by individuals might be imposed — again at a low level to start — then raised to prohibitive levels. So, such a tax is inconsistent with the Washington state constitution.

    *This phrase was derived out of words used by Daniel Webster and by John Marshall (S.C. Justice) in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland 17U.S. 327 (1819).

    I certainly hope that K.J. is correct.

    Like

  3. We need to make sure K.J.’s words are correct by letting the legislature know this is no what we want, not that she will listen.

    Likely, our hope will lie in the Senate.

    Like

  4. Gun deaths and gun violence includes suicides with guns. New Zealand has a much lower gun death rate than the US but about the same suicide rate. I guess they dive off cliffs to kill themselves in NZ.

    Like

  5. Many years ago, a cold war expert remarked “The Soviets slice off a little of the salami at a time, but never enough to fight over. Finally, there’s only the string–and that’s not enough to fight over either.” The Liberal Democrats learned much from their ideological cousins and are trying to slice off just a little of the 2nd amendment at a time, believing we’ll think it’s not enough to fight over. But it is!

    Like

  6. She needs to retire!,

    Like

  7. Children are dying from gaping holes in our mental health system remaining unfilled, and this bunch thinks taxing law abiding citizens for a service provided more effectively and more responsibly by gun owners currently is the solution to the problem. What are they smoking, ingesting, inhaling, snorting and or mixing with koolaide. How did self defense become such a negative thing? How did such a poor excuse for logical problem solving get elected?

    Like

  8. this is proof that Democrats are certifiable nut-cases

    Like

  9. She would of course vote for this but wait, let’s watch and see how she does on the “parental notification bill” that is coming down the pipe. I’ll bet both her and Moeller will vote to stop it. The current system we are using which is free and easy access doesn’t work. We have a 10% higher suicide rate than that of the national averages in teens and we are only one in seven states that allows the current access to abortion, the true killer of children, to go on unchecked without parents even knowing about it. These are related and many more children die from attempting to commit suicide each year with pills and knives than guns. Those are facts and she will vote against parental rights I guarantee it. You will pay more to protect your family and have less access to them and what they need to do so in the first place. STUPID!

    Like

  10. Of course they’ll vote to block parental notification.

    In the meantime, a girl under 18 cannot even get a tattoo in this state.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: