Ohio senators propose sales tax exemption on gun sales
Stock photo of guns. (Photo by Aristide Economopoulos for New Jersey Monitor/States Newsroom.)
Two Republican state senators in Ohio have reintroduced a measure eliminating sales tax for guns and ammunition while dangling tax incentives to lure firearm manufacturers to the state. The sponsors contend Ohio is losing out on gun sales as buyers travel to neighboring tax-free states, and that Ohio has an opportunity to add new jobs if it takes steps to attract businesses.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
State Sen. Tim Schaffer, R-Lancaster, who sponsored a similar bill last session has filed the proposal again. He's joined by state Sen. Al Cutrona, R-Canfield, who moved from the House to the Senate following last year's election and previously backed similar proposals in the lower chamber.
In committee, Schaffer argued Ohio should forgo taxes on firearms and ammunition because gun buyers are likely to cross state lines for cheaper purchases.
'Senate Bill 59 will make the related businesses in our state more competitive with those in neighboring states,' Schaffer argued. 'In 2021, similar language was adopted into law in the state of West Virginia and that highlights the necessity of this legislation to ensure Ohioans support Ohio businesses.'
Although West Virginia has adopted a sales tax exemption for gun and ammunition purchases, none of the other states neighboring Ohio have taken similar steps. A handful of other states, Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon, don't charge sales tax on guns either, but that's because they have no state sales tax at all.
The impact in Ohio could be significant. According to a study conducted by home security website SafeHome.org utilizing data from the National Instant Background Check System, Ohioans purchased nearly 600,000 firearms in 2023. That works out to 668 weapons per 10,000 residents over 21 years of age.
Schaffer cited Legislative Service Commission research that pegged the price tag for the exemption at $22.5 million to almost $38 million. 'Compared to the 2024 total (general revenue fund) of $13.7 billion,' he said.
While Schaffer emphasized how their measure would benefit consumers, Cutrona focused on businesses.
'Jobs. This is what this bill does,' Cutrona argued. 'It creates jobs here in the state of Ohio.'
He explained they'll encourage existing businesses to expand and attract new businesses to the state with a refundable tax credit. Under the proposal, companies could apply for credits tied to their increase in payroll so long as they make a capital investment in Ohio of at least $2 million.
Cutrona described a recent visit to a trade show for firearm manufacturers.
'When I spoke to those CEOs, those owners, you know what they told me?' Cutrona recalled. 'They're looking for states that want their business. They're looking for states that they can appropriately be able to manufacture and produce their product.'
'Well guess what?' he added, 'Ohio is open for business.'
Sen. Bill DeMora, D-Columbus, voiced skepticism for their proposal.
'How many people have been prevented from buying ammunition or a gun because of our sales tax?' he pressed the sponsors.
Schaffer side-stepped DeMora's question arguing, 'it's not so much about how many people will be prevented from buying it, my concern is they'll go across the border.'
He argued hunting and target shooting enthusiasts go through purchase enough that 'for them it makes a big difference.'
'And just to go five, ten, fifteen miles across the border to West Virginia to buy it tax free is a big difference,' he said, 'and then our retailers lose out, and that hurts our jobs.'
Cutrona chimed in that the state line is only about a 40-minute drive from his home in the Youngstown area.
'You're going to start to see a numerous amount of business(es) leave areas like mine to go to states like West Virginia,' he argued.
Follow Ohio Capital Journal Reporter Nick Evans on X or on Bluesky.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
23 minutes ago
Athletes express concern over NCAA settlement's impact on non-revenue sports
Sydney Moore and Sabrina Ootsburg were surrounded by hundreds of college athletes at AthleteCon when news broke that the $2.8 billion NCAA settlement had been approved by a federal judge. In a room full of college athletes, they felt like the only two people who understood the gravity of the situation. 'I'm about to get paid,' Moore said a Division I football player told her. 'Yes, you are about to get paid, and a lot of your women athlete friends are about to get cut,' she responded. Moore acknowledged that her response might be a stretch, but the sprawling House settlement clears the way for college athletes to get a share of revenue directly from their schools and provides a lucky few a shot at long-term financial stability, it raises genuine concerns for others. Schools that opt int will be able to share up to $20.5 million with their athletes over the next year starting July 1. The majority is expected to be spent on high-revenue generating sports, with most projections estimating 75% of funds will go toward football. So what happens to the non-revenue-generating sports which, outside of football and basketball, is pretty much all of them? It's a query that's top of mind for Ootsburg as she enters her senior year at Belmont, where she competes on track and field team. 'My initial thought was, is this good or bad? What does this mean for me? How does this affect me? But more importantly, in the bigger picture, how does it affect athletes as a whole?' Ootsburg said. 'You look at the numbers where it says most of the revenue, up to 75% to 85%, will go toward football players. You understand it's coming from the TV deals, but then it's like, how does that affect you on the back end?' Ootsburg asked. 'Let's say 800k goes toward other athletes. Will they be able to afford other things like care, facilities, resources or even just snacks?' Moore has similar concerns. She says most female athletes aren't worried about how much – if any – money they'll receive. They fear how changes could impact the student-athlete experience. 'A lot of us would much rather know that our resources and our experience as a student-athlete is going to stay the same, or possibly get better, rather than be given 3,000 dollars, but now I have to cover my meals, I have to pay for my insurance, I have to buy ankle braces because we don't have any, and the athletic training room isn't stocked,' Moore said over the weekend as news of Friday night's settlement approval spread. One of the biggest problems, Ootsburg and Moore said, is that athletes aren't familiar with the changes. At AthleteCon in Charlotte, North Carolina, they said, perhaps the biggest change in college sports history was a push notification generally shrugged off by those directly impacted. 'Athletes do not know what's happening,' Ootsburg said. 'Talking to my teammates, it's so new, and they see the headlines and they're like, 'Ok, cool, but is someone going to explain this?' because they can read it, but then there's so many underlying factors that go into this. This is a complex problem that you have to understand the nuances behind, and not every athlete truly does.' Some coaches, too, are still trying to understand what's coming. Mike White, coach of the national champion Texas softball team, called it 'the great unknown right now.' 'My athletic director, Chris Del Conte, said it's like sailing out on a flat world and coming off the edge; we just don't know what's going to be out there yet, especially the way the landscape is changing,' he said at the Women's College World Series in Oklahoma City. 'Who knows what it's going to be?' Jake Rimmel got a crash course on the settlement in the fall of 2024, when he said he was cut from the Virginia Tech cross-country team alongside several other walk-ons. The topic held up the House case for weeks as the judge basically forced schools to give athletes cut in anticipation of approval a chance to play — they have to earn the spot, no guarantees — without counting against roster limits. Rimmel packed up and moved back to his parents' house in Purcellville, Virginia. For the past six months, he's held on to a glimmer of hope that maybe he could return. 'The past six months have been very tough," he said. "I've felt so alone through this, even though I wasn't. I just felt like the whole world was out there – I would see teammates of mine and other people I knew just doing all of these things and still being part of a team. I felt like I was sidelined and on pause, while they're continuing to do all these things.' News that the settlement had been approved sent Rimmel looking for details. 'I didn't see much about roster limits," he said. 'Everyone wants to talk about NIL and the revenue-sharing and I mean, that's definitely a big piece of it, but I just didn't see anything about the roster limits, and that's obviously my biggest concern.' The answer only presents more questions for Rimmel. 'We were hoping for more of a forced decision with the grandfathering, which now it's only voluntary, so I'm a little skeptical of things because I have zero clue how schools are going to react to that," Rimmel told The Associated Press. Rimmel is still deciding what's best for him, but echoed Moore and Ootsburg in saying that answers are not obvious: 'I'm just hoping the schools can make the right decisions with things and have the best interest of the people who were cut.'
The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's palace coup leaves NASA in limbo
When President-elect Donald Trump nominated Jared Isaacman to become NASA administrator, it seemed like a brilliant choice. Business entrepreneur, private astronaut, Isaacman was just the man to revamp NASA and make it into a catalyst for taking humanity to the moon, Mars and beyond. Isaacman sailed through the confirmation process in the Senate Commerce Committee, chaired by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), by a vote of 19 to 9. He was poised to be confirmed by the full Senate when something so bizarre happened that it beggars the imagination. The White House suddenly and with no clear reason why, pulled Isaacman's nomination. After months of a confirmation process, NASA was back to square one for getting a new leader. Ars Technica's Eric Berger offered an explanation as to why. 'One mark against Isaacman is that he had recently donated money to Democrats,' he wrote. 'He also indicated opposition to some of the White House's proposed cuts to NASA's science budget.' But these facts were well known even before Trump nominated Isaacman. Trump himself, before he ran for president as a Republican, donated to Democrats and was close friends with Bill and Hillary Clinton. Berger goes on to say that a source told the publication that, 'with Musk's exit, his opponents within the administration sought to punish him by killing Isaacman's nomination.' The idea that Isaacman's nomination is being deep-sixed because of Musk runs contrary to the public praise that the president has given the billionaire rocket and electric car entrepreneur. Trump was uncharacteristically terse in his own social media post. 'After a thorough review of prior associations, I am hereby withdrawing the nomination of Jared Isaacman to head NASA,' he wrote. 'I will soon announce a new nominee who will be mission aligned, and put America First in Space. Thank you for your attention to this matter!' CNN reports that Isaacman's ouster was the result of a palace coup, noting that a source said, 'Musk's exit left room for a faction of people in Trump's inner circle, particularly Sergio Gor, the longtime Trump supporter and director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office, to advocate for installing a different nominee.' The motive seems to be discontent about the outsized influence that Musk has had on the White House and a desire to take him down a peg or two. Isaacman was profoundly gracious, stating in part, 'I am incredibly grateful to President Trump @POTUS, the Senate and all those who supported me throughout this journey. The past six months have been enlightening and, honestly, a bit thrilling. I have gained a much deeper appreciation for the complexities of government and the weight our political leaders carry.' The idea that a man like Isaacman, well respected by the aerospace community, who was predicted to sail through a confirmation vote in the full Senate, could be taken down by an obscure bureaucrat in White House intrigue, motivated by petty spite, is mind boggling. Even Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), who has not been fond of Trump's space policy, was appalled. He posted on his X account that Isaacman 'ran into the kind of politics that is damaging our country.' 'Republicans and Democrats supported him as the right guy at the right time for the top job at NASA, but it wasn't enough.' NASA is in for months more of turmoil and uncertainty as the nomination process gets reset and starts grinding its way through the Senate. The draconian, truncated budget proposal is certainly not helpful, either. Congress, which had been supportive of Trump's space policy, is not likely to be pleased by the president's high-handed shivving of his own nominee. Whoever Trump chooses to replace Isaacman as NASA administrator nominee, no matter how qualified, should face some very direct questioning. Trump's NASA budget proposal should be dead on arrival, which, considering the cuts in science and technology, is not necessarily a bad thing. China must be looking at the spectacle of NASA being mired in political wrangling, a leadership vacuum and budget uncertainty with glee. Beijing has its own space ambitions, with a planned crewed lunar landing by 2030. It's possible that the Chinese will steal a march on NASA, with all the damage that will do to America's standing in the world. It didn't have to be this way. Isaacman could be settling in as NASA administrator, deploying his business acumen and vision to lead the space agency to its greatest achievements. Instead, America's space effort has received a self-inflicted blow from which it will be long in recovering, Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled 'Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon?' as well as 'The Moon, Mars and Beyond,' and, most recently, 'Why is America Going Back to the Moon?' He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.
Politico
28 minutes ago
- Politico
Ken Martin privately expressed doubt about ability to lead DNC, blaming David Hogg
Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin told party leaders in a recent private conversation that he's unsure about his ability to lead the party because of infighting created by Vice Chair David Hogg. 'I'll be very honest with you, for the first time in my 100 days on this job … the other night I said to myself for the first time, I don't know if I wanna do this anymore,' he said in a May 15 Zoom meeting of DNC officers, according to a recording obtained by POLITICO. In the recording, an emotional Martin describes being deeply frustrated by the fallout over Hogg, who has ignited a firestorm in the party by vowing to spend $20 million in safe-blue primaries to oust incumbent Democrats he believes are ineffective. Martin paused twice while appearing to choke up. The intraparty feud, Martin said on the recording, is making it more difficult for the party to do its work — and had ruined his ability to demonstrate leadership. 'No one knows who the hell I am, right? I'm trying to get my sea legs underneath of me and actually develop any amount of credibility so I can go out there and raise the money and do the job I need to to put ourselves in a position to win,' Martin said, addressing Hogg. 'And again, I don't think you intended this, but you essentially destroyed any chance I have to show the leadership that I need to. So it's really frustrating.' It was an extraordinary admission from the chair of the Democratic Party, just a few months after being elected to lead the party through its post-2024 crisis. The nearly two-minute clip does not include the entire conversation, including how Hogg and others may have responded to Martin. Asked for an interview, Martin, 51, sent a statement through a spokesperson. In it, he said, 'I'm not going anywhere.' 'I took this job to fight Republicans, not Democrats,' he added. 'As I said when I was elected, our fight is not within the Democratic Party, our fight is and has to be solely focused on Donald Trump and the disastrous Republican agenda. That's the work that I will continue to do every day.' Hogg, 25, did not respond to a request for comment. The Zoom meeting took place a few days after a DNC panel recommended holding new elections for the seats held by Hogg and another vice chair, Malcolm Kenyatta, on procedural grounds. DNC members will decide whether to do so in a vote set to begin on Monday. Roughly 10 people attended the May 15 Zoom meeting, including DNC officers and staff, according to two people familiar with the call who were granted anonymity to describe the private conversation. Asked for comment, party leaders rallied behind Martin, expressing confidence in his leadership. In a statement, DNC Associate Chair Shasti Conrad, who attended the Zoom meeting and was briefly mentioned on it, said Martin 'showed vulnerability in a private conversation' and 'stood up' for the Democratic Party. 'He shows up with authenticity. Always,' she said. 'That's what you'll hear on the tape.' Jane Kleeb, president of the Association of State Democratic Committees, was on the call and said she was 'proud of' Martin and the work the party is doing. Kenyatta, who was also at the meeting, similarly stood by Martin: 'Breaking news: a human being had a frustrating day at work. That's all Ken expressed on that call.' After POLITICO reached out to Martin and the DNC, three party officers who were on the call but not contacted by POLITICO sent statements of support for Martin: DNC Associate Chair Stuart Appelbaum, DNC Secretary Jason Rae and Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), a DNC associate chair and former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. Martin, who won a contested election to be DNC chair in February, formerly led the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party for about 14 years. He was also previously president of the Association of State Democratic Committees. When Martin campaigned for the DNC post, he called for a 'massive narrative and branding project' to boost the party's image. As chair, he has traveled the country for canvassing, fundraisers and other events to rally Democrats, including on Saturday in New Jersey. But that work has been overshadowed in recent months by the intraparty dispute that Hogg and Martin have been locked in. Many Democrats said party officers shouldn't take sides in primaries, and Martin proposed requiring party leaders to remain neutral in them. Hogg had pitched a compromise, suggesting an internal 'firewall' that would bar him from access to sensitive information in primaries his group, Leaders We Deserve, were involved with. But Martin rejected that deal. 'Party officers have one job: to be fair stewards of a process that invites every Democrat to the table — regardless of personal views or allegiances,' Martin said, urging Hogg to stay neutral. As the controversy played out, Hogg's position in the party was separately challenged by Oklahoma DNC member Kalyn Free, who filed a complaint in February that Hogg's and Kenyatta's election in February didn't follow DNC rules and made it harder for a woman to be elected vice chair. After the DNC panel's vote in support of another election, Hogg said in a statement that it is 'impossible to ignore the broader context of my work to reform the party which loomed large over this vote' and that the 'DNC has pledged to remove me, and this vote has provided an avenue to fast-track that effort.' The tension within the DNC comes as Democrats grapple with the best way to regroup after devastating electoral losses in November. Hogg, a survivor of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, frames his efforts as a way to reinvigorate the party. Hogg previously told POLITICO 'we have a culture of seniority politics that has created a litmus test of who deserves to be here' and 'we need people, regardless of their age, that are here to fight.' He has won some influential supporters, including longtime Democratic strategist James Carville and radio host Charlamagne tha God. But an intense backlash from other Democrats has accused Hogg of hurting, not helping, the party. Several of the Democratic Party officers leveled that criticism at Hogg in their statements supporting Martin. 'Instead of helping to rebuild the party he's supposed to serve, he's attacking it for personal gain,' said Kleeb. 'That might boost his PAC's fundraising, but it erodes trust in the very institution we're trying to reform and strengthen.' Others emphasized that Hogg is an outlier among party officials, and both Appelbaum and Beatty used the word 'distraction' in their statements. 'The stakes are so high right now that we can't afford distractions like the ones that David is creating,' Appelbaum said. In the Zoom meeting, Martin appeared to acknowledge complaints some had with how the party had operated, but told Hogg the 'fight' was getting in the way. 'It has plenty of warts, and we're all trying to change those, for sure, but the longer we continue this fight, the harder it is for us to actually do what we all want to do, which is make a difference in this country again,' he said in the recording. 'I deeply respect you, David. I, too, was looking forward to working with you, but this has created a situation.'
