Now "All Guns" Must Be Listed On Your Next (2010) Tax Return!
As if we didn't have enough to get upset about! If you have a gun, I hope it isn't registered!
Senate Bill SB-2099 will require us to put on our 2009 1040 federal tax form all guns that you have or own. It will require fingerprints and a tax of $50 per gun.
| This bill was introduced on Feb.. 24, 2009, by the Omama staff. BUT . . this bill will only become public knowledge 30 days after the new law becomes effective ! This is an amendment to the Internal Revenue Act o f 1986. This means that the Finance Committee has passed this without the Senate voting on it at all. Trust Obama ? ..... you must be kidding ! | The full text of the IRS amendment is on the U.S. Senate homepage,U.S. Senate <http://www.senate.gov/> You can find the bill by doing a search by the bill number, SB-2099.
| You know who to call; I strongly suggest you do. Please send a copy of this e-mail to every gun owner you know.|
Obama's Congress is now starting on the firearms confiscation bill. If it passes, gun owners will become criminals if you don't fully comply.
It has begun . . .. Whatever Obama's secret Master Plan is....this is just the 'tip of the iceburg!'
Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the House. This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Ac t of 2009.|
Even gun shop owners didn't know about this because the government is trying to fly it under the radar as a 'minor' IRS revision, and, as usuual, the 'political' lawmakers did not read this bill befre signing and approving it !
To find out about this - go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Google HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009. You will get all the information.
Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm - any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless:
-It is registered -You are fingerprinted -You supply a current Driver's License -You supply your Social Security # -You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing -Each update - change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25 - Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail. -There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18. -They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison.
If you think this is a joke - go to the website and take your pick of many opt ions to read this. It is long and lengthy. But, more and more people are becoming aware of this. Pass the word along. Any hunters in your family pas s this along.|
This is just a "termite" approach to complete confiscation of guns and disarming of our society to the point we have no defense - chip away a little here and there until the goal is accomplished before anyone realizes it.
This is one to act on whether you own a gun or not..
<Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45> :
Please.. copy and send this out to EVERYONE in the USA , whether you support the Right to Bear Arms or are for gun control. We all should have the right to choose.
I'd rather see a rust bucket on the road, than a garage queen anytime!!
makes a LOT of sense!! So, if you dont pay taxes, no need to pay tax on your gun , and no need to report it? great, only hoodlums will have them "legally"
Clearing Up the Rumors: The Truth About The "Gun Tax Bill"
Friday, August 14, 2009
Over the past few months, NRA-ILA has received hundreds of e-mails warning us about "SB-2099," a bill that would supposedly require you to report all your guns on your income tax return every April 15.
Like many rumors, there's just a grain of truth to this one. Someone's recycling an old alert, which wasn't even very accurate when it was new.
There actually was a U.S. Senate bill with that number that would have taxed handguns -- nine years ago. It was introduced by anti-gun Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), and it would have included handguns under the National Firearms Act's tax and registration scheme. This has nothing to do with anyone's Form 1040, of course.
Fortunately, S. 2099 disappeared without any action by the Senate, back when Bill Clinton was still in the White House. We reported about it back then, just as we report about new anti-gun bills every week. Now, it's time for gun owners to drop this old distraction and focus on the real threats at hand.
To read a story by NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox on this and other rumors, please click here.
MANY many thanks, Bjorn, many thanks. I get this stuff and really DELETE most of it. Figured it wasn't FULLY-TRUE but you never know when they'll try something new.
I'd rather see a rust bucket on the road, than a garage queen anytime!!
However, there was talk of Pelozi resurrecting this bill in recent months. Glen Beck mentioned on his show, she had mentioned the bill at a fund raiser. So all in all there is still some life in this thing at some level is still scary!
Google it. Its BS. Even the NRA states it is BS. the below is from 2000:
Gun owners beware!
Back Door Bill (SB-2099)
Senate Bill SB-2099 will require us to put on our 2000 1040 federal tax Form all guns that you have or own. It may require fingerprints and a tax of $50 per gun. This bill was introduced on Feb. 24. This bill will become public knowledge 30 days after it is voted into law. This is an amendment to the Internal Revenue Act of 1986. This means that the Finance Committee can pass this without the Senate voting on it at all.
The full text of the proposed amendment is on the U.S. Senate homepage: http://www.senate.gov/. You can find the bill by doing a search by the bill number. (SB-2099) You know who to call; I strongly suggest you do. Please send a copy of this e-mail to every gun owner you know to help STOP this bill!!
Yes. I am a handgun "enthusiast".
I'm a hobbyist. Not a professional. Don't be hatin'!
Rule #1 of chain email: don't believe anything you read. Rule #1 of media reports: don't believe anything you read or hear. Rule #1 of electronic media: yes, pictures do lie.
So rule #1 before posting controversial topics should be to take the time and look the info up to see if there is any truth to it. Usually there is not, or perhaps just a grain.
Vikki 1969 Goldenrod Yellow / black 400 convertible numbers matching
For the past few years www.snopes.com has positioned itself, or others have labeled it as the 'tell-all, final word' on any comment, claim and e-mail.
But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com. Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it - kind of makes you wonder what they were hiding. Well, finally we know. It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers.. It's just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby.
David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the web site about 13 years ago - and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over the past couple of years people started asking questions who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation? The reason for the questions - or skepticisms - is a result of snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issues, when in fact, they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues.
When I saw that Snopes had falsely claimed that Obama's Birth Certificate had been properly validated, I realized something was wrong with either their research and/or their credibility. It seems something is seriously wrong with both.
Then a few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the Internet. Supposedly the Mikkelsons claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort ever took place.
I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this, and I gave him Bud Gregg's contact phone numbers. Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it. He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm. Yet snopes.com issued a statement as the 'final factual word' on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things. Not!
Then it has been learned the Mikkelsons are very Democrat and extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative. There has been much criticism lately over the Internet with people pointing out the Mikkelsons liberalism revealing itself in their web site findings.
Gee, what a shock!
So, I say this now to everyone who goes to www.snopes..com to get what they think to be the bottom line facts: Proceed with caution.Take what it says at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself.
Plus, you can always Google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that's all the Mikkelsons do. After all, I can personally vouch from my own experience for their 'not' fully looking into things.
