How does new "Health Care Reform" law affect the private sale of your firearms?

This thread is going all over the place; to clarify:

The part of the Constitution that deals with money is Article 1 Section 8. The part dealing with no law being above the Constitution is Article VI.

Every person on this board should know this stuff or at least have a copy of the Constitution on or very near their person at all times.

And if you OC you should be armed with Citizen's Rulebooks for handouts and for your own reference.

eye95 said:

The person making this contention is supporting it with links. The link in the post to which you replied purports to contain actual sections from the US Code. Can you post support for your debunking of this myth? Is the code misquoted? Does it not mean what has been asserted?

Click to expand...

It contains sections of some previously proposed US Code...from a bill that was DOA long ago.

I get sick of repeating myself, but go back to my original post and see what I put there. When someone posts links to another site that starts...my sister's cousin's aunt's grandmother...it's NEVER a reliable source. I'd like to think the members on this board aren't 7 year old children that play the telephone game, but I'm truly starting to wonder.

Again, this rumor has been around for going on 2+ years. It IS NOT true, it DOES NOT exist. This particular site is giving you partials and not the entire information, which gets it skewed out of context. This was started long ago by ....wait for it.... an ANTI.

So I'll repeat myself again...produce the ACTUAL code or it DOES NOT exist. A link to a crap site as was in the OP isn't good enough, far from it.

The IRS cannot tax you on the sale of something that you've paid monies for unless they can prove you've made a profit (income) from the sale. I guess you've been going to H&R Block to have your taxes done all your life. Duh!

There are parts of this that are the real deal, but the issue with firearms sales will be in limbo (in question) for a bit as the health care bill will conflict with the taxation laws already posed upon firearms. Again, the 1099 is used to report income. You selling the firearm to a business cannot constitute income for you unless the IRS can prove it so. It's going to be tough to say how this is going to apply.

Look at a pawn shop. If they allow a pawn, that is temporarily income for that individual but when they return to pick up the item they are taking a loss. This could work in OUR benefit folks. If the Democraps and the IRS want to start this kind of fight, then we all start claiming losses on purchased equipment, ammo, supplies, and firearms on our IRS tax forms. That $20 billion they got in 2009 from firearm and related sales will dry up and then some within the first year.

The health care bill WILL be deemed unconstitutional. It is going to happen, it's just a matter of when. So if you have folks suing the Fed over it ( your AG's office) then get on-board and support defeating such an abuse of power, waste of tax dollars, and outright fraud.

Oh, I forgot to mention, the title of the OP is how it affects "Private sale". It clearly does not affect private firearm sales. Duh!

heresyourdipstickjimmy said:

...I get sick of repeating myself, but go back to my original post and see what I put there. When someone posts links to another site that starts...my sister's cousin's aunt's grandmother...it's NEVER a reliable source...

Click to expand...

One more time. The support was not "my sister's cousin's aunt's grandmother..." The support was a link to an article that quoted the US Code. Either directly refute the US Code or move on. If you cannot do so, I will move on.

You can refute the quoted US Code very easily in two ways. (1) Demonstrate that the code was quoted incorrectly. Or, (2) show that it says something different than the poster and article say it says.

If you think it will be ruled unconstitutional, and that is your only refutation, I will note your opinion, recognize the factual correctness of the OP, and move on.

The OP made a positive assertion and backed it up with the US Code. You have asserted that he is wrong. Logically, the burden is now on you to support your assertion at least as well as the OP did.

eye95 said:

One more time. The support was not "my sister's cousin's aunt's grandmother..." The support was a link to an article that quoted the US Code. Either directly refute the US Code or move on. If you cannot do so, I will move on.

You can refute the quoted US Code very easily in two ways. (1) Demonstrate that the code was quoted incorrectly. Or, (2) show that it says something different than the poster and article say it says.

If you think it will be ruled unconstitutional, and that is your only refutation, I will note your opinion, recognize the factual correctness of the OP, and move on.

The OP made a positive assertion and backed it up with the US Code. You have asserted that he is wrong. Logically, the burden is now on you to support your assertion at least as well as the OP did.

Click to expand...

Fail again. Pull your head out of your 5th point of contact please. Any site that quotes US Code and FAILS to provide links to the data as well as accurate contextual information IS NOT reliable. I'll say it again...IS NOT RELIABLE!

That particular site started off on 3rd or 4th party info. Read it, it's in the 1st paragraph. It cites US Code, but only gives certain excerpts that negate the context of what is addressed in that section. This is exactly what politicians do folks, they use just the portions of an item to their agenda rather than presenting the entire context for review.

Either way, the OP said how it affects private sale. It does not impact private sale. Duh.

heresyourdipstickjimmy said:

Fail again.

Either way, the OP said how it affects private sale. It does not impact private sale. Duh.

Click to expand...

Your cred is quickly approaching zero.

This new law is only a short hop, skip and a jump from requiring all private sales of goods to do the same thing...

Click to expand...

TFred

eye95 said:

Maybe we need and amendment:

"No person or corporation shall be forced to disclose any financial information to any federal agency without a warrant, except that retailers may be required to report total retail sales for the sole purpose of calculating sales taxes. Sales tax collecting agencies may require the maintenance of individual sales records for the purpose of auditing, but may only inspect such records during an audit, and may not collect information from those records other than total sales."

Click to expand...

I've got a better IRS killer.

"The sixteenth amendment is hereby repealed"

Dipstick Jimmy:

Once again, you use vague statements to "refute" US Code presented in actual language. If you take the time to make an assertion, you have the responsibility to spend the time necessary to back them up in a forthright way. (Yeah, it takes time to do so.) You should have lined up any "context" that you think changes the meaning of the cited code.

It doesn't matter. You failed completely to support your assertion, despite being asked one last time.

Moving on.

Oh, and the insulting nature of your above tantrum means you have belonged, all along, on my ignore list. I will spend my time reading posts from folks willing to intellectually back up their contentions. Bye.

You just don't think in the big picture.... Sell a gun every month to the local brady buy back, and they will have broken the law by not sending you your 1099. Now the anti gun government can sit back and watch the IRS take down their biggest supporters, and can't do a thing to stop them.

Besides who would sell a gun in this climate, you buy them and loose them in fishing accidents.