An Illinois state representative is taking a shot a curbing gun violence by taxing bullets.

By Anthony Brino

An Illinois state representative is taking a shot a curbing gun violence by taxing bullets.

Representative Kelly Cassidy is co-sponsoring measure to use money from taxed ammo to fund hospital trauma centers, which deal with gun-shot wounds. The Chicago Democrat told a house committee that the ammo surcharge would create a fund to help trauma centers in areas with high crime.

The surcharge could raise up to $1.2 million a year, and would be distributed to trauma centers around the state. Cassidy says it would help stop a decline in trauma care in communities most affected by gun violence.

Several of Cassidy’s colleagues say the measure is an unfair surcharge to law-abiding gun owners.

A lobbyist from the National Rifle Association called the proposal unfair, and claimed it would be unconstitutional.

Join the Conversation


  1. That law abiding gun owners

    That law abiding gun owners are not the people causing the trauma and necessitating expenditure of heath care resources. This proposal is unfair and violates our second amendment rights. 

    1. Second Amendment rights

      While I agree that the tax may be unfair, there are plenty of examples of unfair tax assessments in many areas of daily life.

      My question to you Olaf is how does this tax violate your second amendment rights? It doesn't sound like they are stopping you from your right 'to keep and bear arms'.

      Which brings up an interesting point for anti-gun advocates, why not try to ban bullets or like this legislator is trying to do ,tax ammunition at such a high rate as to make it unaffordable? That would not violate anyones second amendment rights as there is nothing in that language that mandates that the arms we have a right to bear are required to be loaded.


      1. Tax it all

        They can tax the ink that newspapers and magazines use to print the news at such a high rate that they'll only be able to sell a blank page. After all the Constitution says nothing about ink. The mayor of Chicago would love this.

        Your argument does not hold water and the NRA is right.

    2. To cite just one example from among thousands–

      the owner of the gun used in the triple murder in the high school outside of Cleveland was by all indications a "law abiding citizen".  That gun caused considerable trauma, and it necessitated the expenditure of enormous health care resources.  Why is it so unreasonable to collect a small sum from each owner to offset some of these costs that weapons create?  If not, we all end up paying for this through higher insurance premiums, etc., and I am not particularly inclined to subsidize the costs of repairing the damage that somebody's gun does.

      1. You are wrong

        The owner of this gun was the father of what could be described as a "highly troubled family" with a number of police encounters. The son would committed the crime was also known as a troubled boy. Maybe the school should have had security scanners at the doors. Evanston has this and it appears to have worked in preventing guns in our schools.

        You are trying to repeat the same mistake progressives made in the mass shorting in Arizona when they injected politics into the shooting. Are you going to back-pedal or are you going to continue to make false statements to make your case.

        Check your facts.

        1. Now I think you’re starting to understand…

          So you didn't agree with my portrayal of the gun owner as law abiding, and point out that he had "a number of police encounters".  Fair enough.  But, incredibly,  you seem to think that the fact that the gun owner was unstable and had a violent background supports your position that he should have the right to bear arms.  And in a novel twist. you are quick to point the finger at the school for not having security scanners at the doors.  Are you serious?  It is the responsibility of schools, stores, libraries, etc., to keep dangerous people with guns off of the premises?  How about this novel thought: let's keep guns away freom people who shouldn't have them.  When anyone can have a gun, anyone can get shot,  and anyone can get  killed.  Please do tell me how that is a false statement.


          1. You reading a lot into what I wrote

            I never said that the gun owner had a right to have a hand gun, but he does have that right unless he is a convicted felon or is mentally impaired.

            It is the responsibility of the schools to maintain a safe environment for the students. If that means having metal detecters, it means having metal detecters and guards to man them. I don't know the area the school was in but I do know that guards and metal detecters work most of the time at ETHS.(a couple of times guns got into the school.)

            I don't think that people should be banned from owning a gun except for the reasons stated above. I agree with the constitution and the excepts that the Supreme Court has allowed. I don't not own a gun but any lawful person who wants to spend the dollars should be allow.

            I don't think we are far apart in our views.


  2. Wisconsin and Indiana applaud this proposal

    I'll just keep buying my ammo in Wisconsin and/or Indiana like I've been doing for years. When will Illinois figure it out? How long will it take?

    Either way, downstate Illinois won't allow any such bill to become law.

  3. Same old story

    This legislation is merely another way for politicians to appear to take the moral high ground when all they really want is to get their greedy mitts on more cash to spend.

  4. Logical bill

    I'm all for this and I find it hard to imagine anyone coming up with any kind of valid reason to not support this. It makes perfect sense and is long overdue.

    Bullets should be extremely expensive – like in the Chris Rock skit…

    We should all request our own State Reps and Senator to support this bill

    1. Automobiles by far kill more

      Automobiles by far kill more people each year than guns do. So according to your logic every auto owner should be taxed out of existence to pay for trauma centers? What about all the overweight people? According to your logic we should tax all food and restaurants to pay for trauma centers/weight loss clinics/fitness classes? What about medications, are people who need medications expected to pay a huge tax as well to cover the trauma centers/rehab centers for all the kids who steal people's meds each year? Wake up, it's called personal responsibility!!! Why is it individuals like yourself always expect everyone else to pay for everyone else's ills? 

  5. But wait … There’s more!!

    Not only do they want to add a 2% tax, but they are also trying to pass a registration for all handguns. Each gun owner would have to pay $65 per gun owned … I agree buying ammo out of state, but they will try to screw us this way too!

    How about enforceing the gun laws we already have.? If anyone really cares about the issue, press the legislature to increase gun crime fines. Why not punish the people who are using guns illegally rather that screw the people who have done everything legally?

    1. So we must register our cars and pay $99 annually

      and that's OK (and have to pay for registering numerous other things as well) but registering a gun amounts to being "screwed"?

      1. Yes, screwed.

        Owning/driving a car is not a right. It's a privilege. Free speech is a right. Self-defense is a right. Being able to vote is a right.

        The bill apparently passed today, and they never even called to ask if I thought it was a good idea (LOL).

        The fee will apparently be just $20 per handgun, which is certainly better than $65/handgun, but still…..since when are Americans taxed/charged so that they may continue enjoying a human right? Where is the ACLU on this one?

        I have a proposal: why not tax us for our right to free speech? Our right to vote?

          1. Not human right, constitutional right

            The constitution gives us a right to bear arms.  To argue otherwise is "utter nonsense."

Leave a comment
The goal of our comment policy is to make the comments section a vibrant yet civil space. Treat each other with respect — even the people you disagree with. Whenever possible, provide links to credible documentary evidence to back up your factual claims.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *