Otis Rolley Proposes Potential 500% Tax on Ammunition

Otis Rolly, Mr. Bullet Tax

Otis Rolley is a Democrat candidate for Mayor of Baltimore. He will be on the ballot in the September primary. Rolley wants to place a $1.00 tax on each round of ammunition sold in Baltimore. The measure has been dubbed the "bullet tax."

Now ammunition prices do vary widely depending on quality, feature, material, caliber, and brand; however, since most common ammunition typically costs roughly anywhere from $0.20 to $0.50 per round, this "bullet tax" amounts to tax of anywhere from 200% to 500% for average consumers. For example, if you currently spend $20 for a fifty-count box of 9mm ammunition, that same box will cost you $70 under the new law.  You will be paying an additional $50 dollars in taxes for that one box of ammunition.  Each round will cost $1.40. 

Otis Rolley is thinking that an increase in the cost of ammunition will discourage crime, but this approach is demonstrating his intense naivete. First of all, Otis Rolley is assuming all criminals buy their ammunition from licensed gun shops who follow the rules and pay taxes. Maybe some criminals do buy their ammunition from legitimate stores, but a lot of their ammunition is probably stolen or purchased on the black market. Placing a tax on legitimate ammunition sales is only going to further encourage black market sales.

Another obvious thing that Otis Rolley overlooked is how insignificant the cost of ammunition is to a person committing a crime. If a criminal fires his gun five times while he is robbing someone for $500, will he really care that he spent an extra $5.00 to get that $500? If anything, the criminal will probably want to commit more robberies to make up for the increase in his overhead.

There is another effect Otis Rolley may have overlooked. If the cost of ammunition goes up 200% to 500%, the legal gun-owners will be discouraged from practicing with their weapons. An avid marksmen could easily shoot a hundred rounds per month. (Some marksmen shoot thousands.) If gun-owners are suddenly faced with such a steep increase in ammunition costs, they will probably spend less time training, their skills will decrease, their accuracy will diminish, and they will be more likely to make mistakes in self-defense situations. These mistakes could be deadly for innocent people.

"This is not a revenue enhancement tool. It's a 'make it difficult for you to buy bullets in the city' tool."

-- Otis Rolley

There is another obvious problem with Rolley's proposal. If ammunition is highly taxed in Baltimore, people will just drive to the city limits to buy it. Since the buyers are making a special trip, they will probably buy extra ammunition to justify the special trip. Baltimore residents will still be buying ammunition, but the business owners in the city will not get any of the sales. Some ammunition sellers may be forced just beyond the city limits just so they can maintain a profit.

Given these obvious and simple realities, it is difficult to believe Otis Rolley is really this naive. Placing a $1.00 tax on each round is not going to do much to prevent crime, and it might even lead to bigger problems. What is really behind Otis Rolley's plan is probably a broader attack on the Second Amendment. When the $1.00 tax does not work, Rolley will want to raise it to $2.00. When that does not work, Rolley will want to raise it again and again. Eventually, ammunition will cost so much that no one will be willing to buy it legally anymore, and all ammunition in Baltimore will either be bought on the black market or outside of city limits.

A man who is as naive and so aggressively oppose to at least one basic civil right as Otis Rolley has no place being in a position of power and authority. A man so inexperienced, unaware, and unqualified would probably be a much better fit for a job like Community Organizer.

Congressman Hank Johnson Thinks Guam Might Capsize If Overpopulated

Hank Johnson and Barack Obama (by Alice Keeney)

Democrat Congressman, Hank Johnson of Georgia (4th District) appears to be under the impression that Guam might tip over and capsize if too many Marines and their families move to the island. Hank Johnson said, "My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize."

On the surface, this sounds like an obvious joke. However, if you watch the video of the Hank Johnson at an Armed Services Committee hearing, you will see that Hank Johnson was dead serious when he expressed concerns to Adm. Robert Willard that Guam could potentially flip over if too many people got on the island. At no point, did Johnson smile or give any hint of sarcasm. Hank Johnson even illustrated his point with a hand gesture showing how an island might flip. Johnson claims he was speaking metaphorically and humorously, but the video gives no indication that is the case.

Here is the video www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsFsn8ekyhw. What do you think? Could this Democrat Congressman possibly be this stupid? He did vote for Obama's socialized medicine plan, so his IQ could actually be that low.

Here's a thought. Do you think Hank Johnson ever wondered why Iwo Jima did not flip over when all of those Marines charged onto the island in 1945? Maybe he thinks that's how America won that battle.

Democrats Betray Fourth Amendment with Surveillance Bill

The cowardly Democrats in the House of Representative and Senate have betrayed the American people by backing down and giving President George W. Bush the Surveillance Bill on a silver platter. Thanks to the blue wimp donkeys, President Bush now has the power to further erode what little is left of the Fourth Amendment.

The Surveillance Bill gives greater power to the Federal government’s initiatives to spy on law-abiding Americans without court approval. It also grants immunity to companies, which voluntarily comply with the Federal government in violating your rights. In short, the government wants to continue to spy on you, and give you little recourse, if any.

The passing of the Surveillance Bill has extended a shameful era where you, as a private citizen, may be put under intrusive investigation without a warrant. And, by the way, the surveillance warrants are available. The Bush administration just does not want to be troubled with requesting them through proper channels. Apparently, convenience trumps your Fourth Amendment rights.

What good is a Democrat majority if the Democrat officials just rubberstamp a very unpopular Republican President’s initiatives? Isn’t the Democratic Party supposed to be standing up to the President? Isn’t the Democratic Party supposed to be standing up for our civil rights?