Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Firearm Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor pitches excise tax on firearms/ammunition to fund trauma care and violence‑prevention
Summary
Delegate sponsor and public‑health advocates said HB197 would create a sustainable funding stream (11% excise on dealer gross receipts for specified firearms/accessories) to support hospital trauma care, community violence intervention, victim services and a state firearm violence prevention center; opponents argued the tax will be passed to consumers, drive dealers out of business, and face constitutional challenge.
Delegate (sponsor) introduced House Bill 197 as a dedicated funding mechanism to support trauma care, community violence intervention (CVI) programs, victim services and a new state centre for firearm violence prevention. The proposed excise tax (11% on gross receipts from sales of firearms, ammunition and certain accessories by federally licensed dealers) would be distributed among hospital trauma programs, the Maryland Violence Intervention & Prevention Program, survivor grants and the new center in the Department of Health.
Supporters — including hospital representatives, Johns Hopkins researchers, community CVI groups, Baltimore’s Office of Neighborhood Safety and national groups such as Giffords — said the funds are needed because federal grants have been reduced and many CVI and hospital‑link programs risk staff losses. “These programs interrupt cycles of retaliatory violence and connect survivors to services,” a Johns Hopkins adviser said, citing evidence that sustained local investment correlates with reductions in shootings in cities where CVI was expanded.
Opponents — firearm dealers’ associations, trade groups and civil‑liberties‑oriented speakers — argued the tax will be borne by consumers, drive purchases out of state or to non‑FFL sellers, impose administrative burdens on small dealers and face near‑certain litigation on constitutional grounds. Mark Pennak and others warned that if courts later strike the tax down, Maryland could face refunds and legal costs.
Committee members pressed witnesses on the distribution plan, legal risk and how the tax interacts with cross‑border purchases and private transfers. Sponsor supporters pointed to California and Colorado initiatives that use similar excise approaches to fund prevention programs; opponents pointed to pending litigation in those states. The committee did not vote at the March 5 hearing.
Ending: The bill generated sharply divided testimony on its legality and economic effects; supporters emphasized sustainable funding for effective community programs, while dealers and constitutional litigators urged caution and noted fiscal/legal uncertainty.
