House Rejects Clarifying Sales Tax Exemption on Gun Safes

[GOAL]

PETERSON AMENDMENT - GUN LOCKS: Rep. Peterson
offered an amendment exempting gun safes and
trigger lock devices from the sales tax.

Rep. Peterson said, Can anyone in this chamber
tell me how much a child's life is worth? Can
anyone in this chamber tell me how much a child's
life is worth? You're probably saying, what's
that got to do with this amendment? Several years
ago, we mandated the proper care and storage of
firearms across the commonwealth because it was
for the children. Those children, being
inquisitive, might play with those firearms and
either hurt themselves or others. Even with the
adoption of those laws and regulations, it has
happened. There have been children lost. That's
why I ask, how much is a child's life worth? I
know the gentleman from Revenue is going to get
up here and say we can't afford to do this
amendment. It's going to cost $1 million. One of
the most effective ways of storing firearms is a
gun safe. But in Massachusetts, even though we
passed an amendment to the budget several years
ago exempting gun safes from the sales tax, there
was a word commercial added so that not all gun
safes are sales tax free. This amendment does one
simple thing. It strikes the word commercial and
allows all gun safes to be exempt from the sales
tax. The Department of Revenue estimates it's a
whole million dollars in revenue you're going to
lose, but I come back to that question: how much is that child's life worth?

Rep. Peterson requested that a vote be taken by a
call of the yeas and nays. There was support.

BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 59-92, AMENDMENT NOT ADOPTED

 

[doobie]

Ok, so if they expect to lose 1m in tax revenue. That means there will be $20,000,000 in sales. Or assuming $1,000 safe, that would mean 20,000 safes sold. Sound valid?

20,000 safes that weren't previously counted as tax exempt safes.

 

[GLOCK.Perfection]

if that got struck down, hows it looking for lowering the licensing fee?

 

[KimberCT]

Come down here to CT. They are sales tax free here.

The "Please, won't someone think of the children!" argument worked on our liberals.

 

[OnTheRoad]

Around here it's still "It's all for the children - as long as someone else foots the bill."

 

[C-pher]

Depending on who you buy your safe from, it will be tax free.

But some pleaces won't because of that word. It's stupid...and the reps of this state sometimes can be VERY dense.

 

[Mr Weebles]

Several years
ago, we mandated the proper care and storage of
firearms across the commonwealth because it was
for the children.

I just threw up in my mouth.

 

[matt1956]

Ok, so if they expect to lose 1m in tax revenue. That means there will be $20,000,000 in sales. Or assuming $1,000 safe, that would mean 20,000 safes sold. Sound valid?

20,000 safes that weren't previously counted as tax exempt safes.

yeah... and considering the fact that MOST people buying a safe for the first time, are likely buying one for less then $750, that number increases to 30,000...

I don't see 30,000 new gun safe buyers in the state of MA.

 

[Jay G]

I don't see 30,000 new gun safe buyers in the state of MA.

Fred alone must buy a couple hundred safes a year...

 

[mark056]

if that got struck down, hows it looking for lowering the licensing fee?

+1 Bingo !

Mark L.

 

[VTpro]

Lower firearms fee bill H 4700

if that got struck down, hows it looking for lowering the licensing fee?

It was rejected

Lower firearms fee (H 4700)

House 75-83, rejected an amendment that would reduce the firearms licensing fee from $100 to $40, and expand to six years the length of time for which the license is valid. Under current law, the license is valid for five or six years, depending on the birthday of the license holder. The state receives $75 of the current $100 fee, while the local community gets $25. Under the new $40 fee, local communities would still receive the same $25, while the state’s share would be reduced to $15.

Amendment supporters said that the fee was raised in 1998 in order to fund a new and more efficient system of licensing. They argued that the system is now in place and it is time to reduce the fee. Amendment opponents said that the state cannot afford the revenue loss. (A “Yes” vote is for the amendment reducing the fee to $40. A “No” vote is against the reduction and favors the $100 fee).

Rep. Michael Moran No

Rep. Michael Rush No

Rep. Jeffrey Sanchez No

Rep. Frank Smizik No

 

[MassMark]

It was rejected

Shocking....not. This is precisely why I grow ever weary of nicey nice...With only a pathetic 5% of Massachusetts gun owners signed up with GOAL, it seems that even public outcry will fall on deaf ears. The one thing I've learned about Massachusetts is that in the state where revolution took its first breath, people have become all too comfortable just rolling over and taking it...

I'm tired of "feel-good measures" - despite being minor victories. God forbid we get a tax break on a goddamned gun safe, or pay $40.00 for an unconstitutional gun license. It's in my budgetary line items to send in my yearly check to GOAL, (I wish they'd autodraft) and I plan on becoming more proactive in signing new members. I will not however sit quietly any longer when it comes to exactly this kind of blatant bullshit. I will not engage in any conversations about our eroded constitutional rights here in Massachusetts that do not include legal action against the state. Why on earth there's no fund within GOAL to actively sue the state of Massachusetts is completely beyond me. I would gladly pay double my yearly membership fee, (and then some), if 100% of that money went to retain attorneys and file lawsuits - all the way to the SCOTUS! Pardon my French, but it's time to quit f***ing around with these asshats....

 

[pbearperry]

Gee I am suprised in this vote as I always considered Mass. to be a safe place.lol

 

[Bruce for NH State Rep]

Thank God! For a minute there, I thought the state's poor and down-trodden might be able to enjoy the same rights and privileges as those higher up the socio-economic ladder than themselves.

 

[depicts]

Yeah, I sure don't want those people who can't afford a hundred dollars for the license, $125 for the safety class, and maybe $300 or more for a safe, to be able to own or carry guns. Let them defend themselves the old way, with baseball bats and golf clubs, they can be purchased very cheaply used.

I'm tired of all the whining about money. If these people don't have enough money, obviously they aren't managing their portfolios correctly.

 

[.40Smith&Wesson]

What are we talking about here?

If we are talking about locks and safes, It was my understanding that these were already in the MGL.

So what the hell are were they voting on if it is already the law? Can someone please clarify?

I have insider knowledge that the Gun Owner Action League has sent letter(s) to retailer(s) of trigger locks and gun safes demanding that the sales of these items be tax free. So does this make the Gun Owners Action League erroneous on this topic? That can't be. The Commonwealth verifyed to at least one retailer that they should be tax free and adjustments were made.

So can someone give me a scenario in which according to the current law, these items would be taxed?

 

[C-pher]

So can someone give me a scenario in which according to the current law, these items would be taxed?

You buy the safe for personal use. Then it's taxed per the MGL. Safes are only tax free if they are "Commercial Safes."

 

[.40Smith&Wesson]

You buy the safe for personal use. Then it's taxed per the MGL. Safes are only tax free if they are "Commercial Safes."

Well GOAL sent my company a letter demanding we stop selling safes with sales tax.

Every safe we sell is for personal use.