Ritter wants gun owners to pay....

[Graves]

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_14250327
Gun fee foes go off half-cocked
Legislators are missing the mark by opposing a bill that would force gun owners to pay a mere $10.50 for background checks.

By The Denver Post
Posted: 01/23/2010 01:00:00 AM MST

We understand the anxiety some gun owners feel when hearing the word "fee." We also understand that even the most innocuous issues surrounding gun ownership have the tendency to burst into a fiery political battle.

But we think Gov. Bill Ritter's modest proposal to impose a $10.50 fee on gun purchases in order to recoup the cost of criminal background checks, currently paid for by the state, is both reasonable and necessary.

If the governor's proposed fee went beyond covering the actual costs of obtaining a background check, we too would oppose the proposal.

If we felt that the fee was a backdoor tax, we too would be concerned.

But if Colorado's teachers have to pay for their own background checks, it only seems fair that gun owners do likewise.

Ritter proposed the fee last year to help shore up a massive, $1.5 billion state budget shortfall. Budget-balancing measures must first go to the Joint Budget Committee, and if the panel gives it a unanimous thumbs up, the bill is sponsored with the whole committee's blessing, Post reporter Tim Hoover wrote in Friday's newspaper.

But Rep. Kent Lambert, R-Colorado Springs, and Sen. Al White, R-Hayden, have opposed the idea in the budget committee and used the highest forms of political rhetoric in doing so, comparing the fee to a "poll tax" or "an onerous burden."

The fee is neither onerous nor a poll tax. A $10.50 charge will not inhibit anyone's Second Amendment rights, though it will help alleviate some of the budget crush.

The small fee would have generated around $557,000 over four months in the current budget year and around $1.6 million in a full year.

Now its fate is unclear.

"I have a feeling it's not going anywhere. It's just a hot potato," said JBC chairman Rep. Jack Pommer. "It's frustrating because I think it's unfair to all the people, like teachers, who do pay for their own background checks."

As Colorado deals with crippling budget shortfalls, it would be unfortunate if a common-sense fee was to fail because of needless political wrangling.

And if Republicans want to upend budget fixes recommended by the Democratic governor, they should continue to come up with some of their own ideas. And Democrats should take them seriously.

This tighter-than-tight budget needs bipartisan solutions.

(Comments block at the bottom of the page)

Letters to the Editor:
openforum@denverpost.com

Typical Demmy gimmie gimmie bullshit.... Boy I can't wait until he's voted out.

[Birddog1911]

Maybe if those assholes in Denver would stop spending like drunken sailors this sort of thing wouldn't be necessary!

[jerrymrc]

What the writer fails to take into account is that for most of us we already pay $20-$30 for that background check. This is just plain creep.

Sometimes I wish they would say what is on there minds. Why start at $10.50? Just put it out there that ya want a $100 TAX on every firearm sold and be done with it.

I for one can see the hand on the temperature knob, I don't need to feel the heat to know it is coming.

[GreenScoutII]

What these Ass-Clowns in Denver need to remember is two things.

1. We already pay for the background check. Typically $15-20 bucks where I live.

2. THEY wanted the Goddamn background checks in the first place, not us... We shouldn't have to do the stupid thing to begin with, but thats a subject for another thread... If THEY insist on the BG check, it should be done at NO COST to the purchaser.

Times are tough enough already, how much more do they think they can squeeze us????

[jerrymrc]

Times are tough enough already, how much more do they think they can squeeze us????

How much ya got in that paycheck?

Years ago I had an issue with the IRS. I think in the back of my mind that some people in power would just like us to hand it all over to them so THEY can do the right thing for us "little people".

[palepainter]

Fukem all.

[cmailliard]

Times are tough enough already, how much more do they think they can squeeze us????

While I agree that this tax is stupid as there already is a fee for background checks, the argument used here is just stupid.

If time are tough you probably should not be buying guns. If you can afford to buy a $500 Glock, $1000 AR-15, or $500 shotgun you can AFFORD to pay this $10.50 tax.

Like I said the tax is a stupid idea, just don't make it about affordability.

[GreenScoutII]

While I agree that this tax is stupid as there already is a fee for background checks, the argument used here is just stupid.

If time are tough you probably should not be buying guns. If you can afford to buy a $500 Glock, $1000 AR-15, or $500 shotgun you can AFFORD to pay this $10.50 tax.

Like I said the tax is a stupid idea, just don't make it about affordability.

Oh, my argument is stupid is it? Perhaps you missed my point...

In tough economic conditions, additional fees, taxes, and surcharges will only exacerbate a consumer's reluctance to buy the items these fees are levied on..

Granted, an additional $10.50 on a $1000 dollar AR is just a drop in the bucket, but we already pay sales tax PLUS the existing fee for the background check. Enough is enough. Obviously, the gov is trying to tax us into prosperity. I think we all know how well that works.

[Troublco]

While I agree that this tax is stupid as there already is a fee for background checks, the argument used here is just stupid.

If time are tough you probably should not be buying guns. If you can afford to buy a $500 Glock, $1000 AR-15, or $500 shotgun you can AFFORD to pay this $10.50 tax.

Like I said the tax is a stupid idea, just don't make it about affordability.

When you add up all of the extra crap Ritter has saddled us with, like the extra fees we pay with our vehicle registrations, it quickly becomes about affordability. It doesn't take very long to become expensive when you start adding it up.
Everyone needs their vehicles, so whether we like it or not we pay his damn fee. With this one, the only people who care are those of us who get hit with it even though many pay for the checks already, even though the folks who wanted the whole checks system are the same ones who want us to pay for it now. As soon as they get us paying the $10.50, they'll find some reason to jack it up, as much and often as they can. It can easily be turned into a way to regulate gun purchases, much the way they did with the machine gun tax when it was enacted ($200 was a LOT then).
So they want us to pay for the checks that they made mandatory. Why do we not hear about prosecutions of people who are caught trying to illegally buy guns? Has anyone heard of how many legitimate purchase denials there are in a month? A year? How many of those are prosecuted? How many are convicted? They just committed a felony, yet we hear NOTHING. Could it be that the results of this system that they now want US to pay for are IGNORED because the real reason for its existence was to put yet another chink in legitimate gun ownership? Or could it be that the system doesn't produce results? Because I don't know about you guys, but I can count on one hand the number of prosecutions I've heard about from this system. And frankly, it pisses me the hell off that apparently this sort of felony is ignored while the ATF spends time and effort going after legitimate dealers and harassing them. Why aren't the Brady bunch and all of their ilk crowing about the number of prosecutions from people caught trying to illegally buy guns? They talk about how many purchases are prevented, but never about how many are ultimately reversed on appeal (big surprise there, eh?) or how many people are convicted based on their attempt to purchase illegally. And with the 4473, THEY HAVE PROOF ON PAPER! It would appear to me that, much like the pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm, some Felonies are more equal than others.

(Sorry, wasn't trying to hijack the thread. Just makes me mad!)

[Moviestar]

Maybe if those assholes in Denver would stop spending like drunken sailors this sort of thing wouldn't be necessary!

this made me LOL