Bill Overview
Title: No User Fees for Gun Owners Act
Description: This bill prohibits a state or local government from imposing any insurance requirement, tax, user fee, or similar charge as a condition of the manufacture importation, acquisition, transfer, or continued ownership of a firearm or ammunition, with the exception of a proportionate sales tax. The bill imposes the same prohibition under the Internal Revenue Code for firearms, pistols, or revolvers, but allows for the assessment of a proportionate sales tax.
Sponsors: Rep. Jackson, Ronny [R-TX-13]
Target Audience
Population: Gun owners and potential gun owners, including manufacturers and importers of firearms
Estimated Size: 100000000
- The bill impacts individuals who manufacture, import, acquire, transfer, or own firearms or ammunition as it removes financial barriers related to fees and insurance.
- Gun owners, both current and prospective, are directly impacted as the removal of fees could lower the cost associated with gun ownership.
- Manufacturers and importers of firearms may see an increase in demand due to the reduction or removal of certain financial and bureaucratic barriers for consumers.
- The bill's impact is majorly felt in jurisdictions that currently impose such fees or requirements, hence the population in these areas will experience a change in regulations.
Reasoning
- The majority of gun owners and manufacturers live in regions without current fees, minimizing direct cost savings for them. Only a subset will experience significant fee reductions.
- The policy might slightly increase the accessibility of firearms due to lower costs of ownership, but societal attitudes towards gun ownership are varied and can mitigate this effect.
- Residents in jurisdictions with high fees will likely see more pronounced changes in their economic burden.
- Due to the spread of gun ownership, socioeconomic diversity among gun owners implies varied impacts on wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
Firearms manufacturer (Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm thrilled about this new bill. It potentially boosts my business as more people can afford to buy guns when costs go down.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Teacher (California)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about how this might increase gun accessibility without addressing safety concerns.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Police officer (Illinois)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill could lead to more guns in unregulated hands, which is worrying for public safety.
- However, it might also ease financial burdens for lawful owners.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retail worker (Florida)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Lowering fees means I might afford to buy the gun I've been thinking about.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired (New York)
Age: 67 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this bill is great — it's a step towards less government interference in gun rights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Small business owner (Missouri)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will surely increase my customer base as owning guns becomes economically easier for folks around here.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Community worker (New Jersey)
Age: 60 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm deeply worried about the implications of more accessible guns in already vulnerable communities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
IT professional (Washington)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate the cost reductions this bill brings without compromising on my constitutional rights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Graduate student (Ohio)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I fear this will ease barriers for gun ownership with insufficient focus on gun responsibility.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Hunter (Alaska)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've always believed such fees were unnecessary, so this change aligns with my views on personal freedom.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $51000000 (Low: $30600000, High: $71400000)
Year 3: $52020000 (Low: $31212000, High: $72828000)
Year 5: $55125100 (Low: $33075060, High: $77175140)
Year 10: $63584759 (Low: $38150855, High: $89118663)
Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $140000000)
Key Considerations
- Revenue losses are primarily at the state and local levels, impacting budgets related to public services like law enforcement and safety programs.
- The legislative impact might create a demand for increased federal or alternative state funding to fill gaps left by the removal of fees.
- This bill may face varying degrees of opposition or support depending on each jurisdiction's reliance on these fees.