Market oriented solutions to the problem of too many guns
There are too many guns in the USA. If you don’t agree, no need to bother reading on. The market oriented solution is obvious, has no Constitutional problems, and is simple.
1) tax gun production and imports. They don’t grow on trees. A tax of $ 5000 per gun would be useful. Better a higher tax on semi-automatics and a lower tax on shot guns. I don’t give a damn about the risk of depriving poor people of an easy way to kill themselves and each other.
2) Higher tax on alcohol too. Basically most gun deaths involve alcohol. This is obvious.
3) Pay list price for a new gun + the tax for guns and melt them.
So the tax is just a don’t kill someone before you sell this gun back deposit.
The solution is simple. People respond to prices. Yes gun nuts might decide to become super rich people instead.
Fine by me.
Not so fast on your no constitutional problem. Many years ago, the Supreme Court said the power to tax is the power to destroy. If the court persists in its position that gun ownership is a right guaranteed by the 2d Amendment, your end around won’t be allowed.
Jack:
One could call it a Luxury tax similar to what existed during the sixties to fund the Vietnam war.
Anyway using the Heller, 7th District decided in favor of Highland Park banning assault style weapons. 4th District in an en banc decision 10-4 ruled an AR-15 is similar to an M-16 and that the second amendment protections do not extend to what it called “weapons of war.” Heller v. District of Columbia decision rendered in 2008 explicitly allows governments to regulate firearms similar in design and function to those issued to members of the military.
Perhaps other legal minds may disagree? I only point out what has occurred to date. However, rather than saying “assault weapons,” in the future perhaps we should say “the kinds of weapons that Justice Antonin Scalia has defined as ‘dangerous and unusual’ and subject to regulation or an outright ban under the Second Amendment.”
Perhaps these could be taxed.
Unconvincing. Cute I concede, but … If we actually did pretty much all agree we had too many guns in America, we could solve this by simply passing laws to cut down their numbers and enforcing them. Instead, we have to reckon some fraction of the populace — 43% perhaps? — simply demands their unalienable right to threaten and even kill other people at the drop of a hat and will go bat**** insane if deprived of this absolute necessity. There’s no economic fix for this.
The guns are already out there and many (most?) gun nuts won’t surrender them willingly, regardless of any legislation that’s passed. They’ll hide them or report them stolen. There will also be an enforcement problem. Lots of small town police departments and sheriff’s departments completely buy into the inane idea that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was so the people could overthrow a tyrannical government (good luck with that, given the militarization of police forces nationwide). Outside of a few big cities, law enforcement will decline to enforce any laws that take away guns. Some sheriffs have already said that they won’t enforce them, and in those communities those sheriffs are likely to be supported by most voters and won’t get voted out. Alas, I think JackD above is correct about SCOTUS knocking down any taxes, which is a shame because a financial incentive is the only thing that might work.
Bill:
Welcome to AB. First time comments and commenters go to moderation initially to weed out spam, spammers, and advertising.
“JackD
August 11, 2019 2:29 pm
Not so fast on your no constitutional problem. Many years ago, the Supreme court said the power to tax is the power to destroy. If the court persists in its position that gun ownership is a right guaranteed by the 2d Amendment, your end around won’t be allowed.”
JackD has made some really DUMB statements but this one takes the cake. We tax the mess out of tobacco and yet tobacco sales are still roaring and the profit margins of the tobacco companies are very high.
I doubt JackD really understands the Constitution but hey this is an economist blog. And JackD knows nothing about economics.
PGL:
I do talk to Jack on legal issues. He is well known in the Chicago area. If I am commenting to him, it is to see what his thoughts are on something I have read. I have had a case in SCOTUS too.
A few days ago I proposed this very same idea over at Menzie Chinn’s Econbrowser:
http://econbrowser.com/archives/2019/08/mass-shootings-and-the-trump-effect#comment-228922
Except I proposed a $10K tax on semi-automatic weapons and a steep tax on ammunition. The idea isn’t just to reduce the number of guns, but to shift demand for guns away from semi-automatic weapons to manually loaded guns.
And JackD’s constitutional skepticism is misplaced because we already tax guns and ammo. So this isn’t a new principle. We’re haggling about how large the tax should be.
A heavy tax on ammunition would also go a long way towards the “already out there” problem brought up by Bill Reynolds. No one is looking for a 100 percent perfect solution, just one that moves the numbers in the right direction. Also, most guns are owned by a surprisingly small percentage of the population, and that is literally a dying demographic. Heirs might be quite eager to sell any inherited guns to government if the price was right.
2slugs:
In Jack’s defense, he is an attorney who I turn to with questions. I do not question his competency.
@2slugbaits, I wasn’t suggesting they couldn’t be taxed; rather that if the tax was so onerous as to deny availability to ordinary people, the courts wouldn’t allow it.
Jack:
You answered me too with that comment.
Some people don’t care about the cost of firearms. They help themselves to someone else’s guns and use them to shoot other people, often not the intended targets.
I didn’t realize that the Constitution protected the sales of tobacco. Which amendment was that?
“JackD
August 11, 2019 9:02 pm
I didn’t realize that the Constitution protected the sales of tobacco. Which amendment was that?”
Not what I said and you know that. I was clear – very high taxes and yet people buy tobacco even as the producers make huge profits. I thought you were an attorney so one would think you understand plain English. But maybe not.
The taxes make tobacco expensive but don’t put it out of reach. The proposed taxes on guns and ammunition would make them unaffordable for most people.
So if JackD is right, then we could be looking at a SCOTUS ruling that would strike down a steep tax against guns in order to protect the right to own an assault weapon, but that same SCOTUS could also strike down the ACA because the current tax is too low (i.e., zero). So if people lose access to healthcare because a tax is too low, that’s fine with the Court; but God forbid people losing access to guns because the tax is too high. As the comedian used to say, “What a country!”
BTW, unlike Robert Waldmann, I wasn’t proposing a steep tax on all guns, just semi-automatic weapons. People would still have access to guns at an affordable cost.
A tax on semi-automatic weapons that was essentially a prohibition would probably be OK, just as would a ban. Even Scalia’s opinion allowed for restrictions on particular weapons.
I am not allowed to own a nuclear weapon for “self defense”.
I am allowed to own a revolver.
We just have to move the line closer to revolver.
Even a modest tax on ammo would help.
An anecdote.
In the early 1970’s military armories with supply of M-16’s were kept very secure. We were warned about the danger of those weapons getting out in to society. In those days the “actions” were military spec’ed and no license for private manufacture.
I wonder when the specs were made available for commercial use?
Ilsm’s anecdote is interesting but two realities. A lot of these military style assault weapons are based on Soviet technology not ours. Besides – once a technology is created, it is hard to bottle up. A lot of people can reverse engineer what goes into an M-16.
ILSM,
The AR-15 pre-dates the M16 by a few years. Colt bought the semi-automatic rifle from a bankrupt company in 1964. Of course, Colt, who also manufactured the M16, went bankrupt as well a few years ago. I remember being in meetings where Colt wanted to convince the Army to buy hundreds of thousands of new M16 rifles even though the Army already had millions of unused rifles in storage. The problem was that Colt wasn’t competitive when it came to manufacturing the replacement parts (e.g., 30 round magazines, rails, etc.), so Colt wanted the Army to buy the full-up rifle and then disassemble each weapon for parts. As you know, the parts are funded differently then the weapon (viz., working capital fund versus procurement appropriated dollars). Anyway, despite Congressional pressure the Army didn’t go along with the idea and Colt went bankrupt a few years later.
Also, the weapons themselves are still kept behind a secure armory. With the exception of the receiver, the non-sensitive downparts are stored in unsecured warehouse bins.
Just vague replies
First I don’t claim that my proposal would completely solve the problem, just reduce it.
Second I was discussing effective policy not political feasibility. My proposed policy would be blocked by McConnell because it is a proposed policy
3rd I’m not a lawyer
4th I’m not a lawyer
5th but I really like to pretend I’m a lawyer and
The press is protected, but that doesn’t ban sales tax on paper, ink and movable type. I don’t see a case against excise taxes. Also trusty old 16th doesn’t say taxes on different kinds of income must be the same (and they currently aren’t) so could have a 10000% tax on income from selling guns. Basically, if read literally, the 16th repeals much of the bill of rights (see also me arguing with a real lawyer that best case for ACA mandate was 16th amendment not commerce clause& months later quoting Roberts.)
Heeyyyy I just thought of something. Congress has the authority to make rules for the militia (reason why Washington signing the 2nd militia act is not a good precedent for the ACA mandate).
The 2nd begins “well regulated militia”. The court has decided that establishes an individual right (in 1789 the militia was all able bodied white men, so witb 14th making it all adults get to all adults have the right to bear arms).
OK Antonin, so, for constitutional purposes, we are all militiamen and militiawomen. Not just those in the national guard. So congress can regulate our militia service (as it has see militia acts passed by the congress that also approved the 2nd amendments and signed by founding all father G Washington). The acts described exactly what weapon able bodied white men must own (“rifle or musket”) also what ammunition.
There is nothing in the 2nd that says regulation of the militia must specifiy minimum but not maximum armament.
I propose 3rd militia act which says all members of the militia (that is all adult legal residents) must own a bolt action rifle, or a shot gun, or a single action revolver, or a water pistol, and that they may not own other firearms.
Sounds pretty damn constitutional to me. To argue against, one must argue that regulations inherently set minimums not maximums (which would make the clean air act unconstitutional among other things),
I know that the Constitution says whatever the majority of the Supreme
Court says it says and that 4 of 9 are totally shameless partisans while Roberts is an occasionally mildly embarrassed partisan, but I really don’t see any plausible case against my 3rd militia act.
Oh and undocumented aliens are allowed only the water pistol option because, while they are people they aren’t among “the people”.
r
2slugbaits
Thanks, I was the “owner” of a small armory in a USAF field outfit. The order was ‘secure the rifle or someone get court martialed’. The SOP was adequate. A case of “just do it”.
I did not move into USAF system acquisition for another 10 years.
I am surprised the Army acquired “off the shelf” personal arms, before the rage for ‘off the shelf’ in the early post cold war. No military “innovation” is new or unique. As my NCO’s offered way back when.
I learn something every day.
Why don’t states tax guns and ammo the same way they tax cigarettes. The average tax on a pack of cigarettes nationwide (all taxes) is over $6 a pack on a product that costs less than $0.50 to make, a 92% margin. If you tax a $500 gun that cost $175 to make using that formula assuming the selling price of a pack of cigarettes is $7 – it would not cost $500 but $2187.50 of which $1875 would be tax revenue.
Probably a lot simpler to just require gun owners to carry adequate liability insurance. You know, the system we’ve used for cars for about 60 years or so.
Handguns probably need at least $10M liability. High powered rifles and semi automatics should probably carry a minimum of $250M given the recent carnage.
And if this makes gun ownership too pricey, well that’s capitalism.
The liability insurance at least would address to some extent the ongoing problems of mass shooting victims resorting to gofundme to pay for injuries and funeral expenses etc.
AS:
Read what I wrote earlier. Anything put in place must fit in the confines of Heller.
Anyway using the Heller decision, 7th District decided in favor of Highland Park banning assault style weapons. 4th District in an en banc decision 10-4 ruled an AR-15 is similar to an M-16 and that the second amendment protections do not extend to what it called “weapons of war.”
Heller v. District of Columbia decision rendered in 2008 explicitly allows governments to regulate firearms similar in design and function to those issued to members of the military.
Perhaps legal minds may disagree? I only point out what has occurred to date. However, rather than saying “assault weapons,” in the future perhaps we should say “the kinds of weapons that Justice Antonin Scalia has defined as ‘dangerous and unusual’ and subject to regulation or an outright ban under the Second Amendment.”
Perhaps these could be taxed.
I was thinking the same as Robert regarding militia regulation. In regulating a militia, you can regulate everything related to it.
With that, the gun is in the minds of the public, a general consumer item. With that, the government has established the role of defining the safety of the item.
We make many thing stupid proof as a means to prevent the “smart” from accidentally harming another. The automobile is a perfect example. Also in making something stupid proof, is the use of upping the proven smarts for using such an item. Again, the automobile. You can’t just jump in an 18 wheeler and go. At the extremes toward making something stupid proof is the use of limits on use. Again, the automobile. You can’t just take a top fuel rail down the road. In fact, you can’t just jump in and run it at the track.
We have many options to use regarding solving the issue the bastardization of the 2nd amendment has created. It does not just have to be gun removal.
At the same time, we have to get back to understanding that maturation of a society is the recognition that one no longer has to rely on one’s self for protection from criminal activity. Wyatt Earp took away the guns in Dodge and the citizens saw that as the coming of law and order. Totally counter to the current argument (NRA et al) that gun ownership is law and order.
Without that change, “gun control” will be a whack-a-mole project.
Daniel:
Everything you mention here has merit. To drive an auto of truck takes certified training, proof of such, and a recertification every few years. States may require licensing to carry pistols and not long rifles and a certificate to own, sell, or buy. Long rifles do not require a permit to buy. Some states are more lax and others require additional information. This is what Michigan does in General with some stipulations on certain requirements.