PDA

View Full Version : Doesn't a new tax require a 2/3 vote?


halifax
10-10-2011, 11:41 AM
Did SB819 get the 2/3 majority vote needed to pass a new tax?

Sorry if this has been covered.

Bhobbs
10-10-2011, 11:42 AM
Who says it's a tax?


I mean we believe it is a tax but who knows if a judge(s) will agree.

Crom
10-10-2011, 11:45 AM
The DROS fees (ahem.. new tax) is bing addressed in the Bauer v. Harris (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=471080) (Docket here) (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.228128/gov.uscourts.caed.228128.docket.html) lawsuit that is currently underway. :)



For similar reasons, each of the Challenged [DROS] “Fees” is not really a “fee” at
all, but an illegal tax enacted and imposed in violation of the California
Constitution.

halifax
10-10-2011, 11:49 AM
The DROS fees (ahem.. new tax) is bing addressed in the Bauer v. Harris (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=471080) (Docket here) (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.228128/gov.uscourts.caed.228128.docket.html) lawsuit that is currently underway. :)

Thank you. Does that mean an injunction since it takes effect immediately?

Crom
10-10-2011, 12:47 PM
Thank you. Does that mean an injunction since it takes effect immediately?

I'd love to see an injunction be filed and subsequently granted by the court, while the case is being litigated. That would seem like the correct thing to do.

We can hope.

Burbur
10-10-2011, 2:33 PM
Thank you. Does that mean an injunction since it takes effect immediately?

I would expect it

taperxz
10-10-2011, 2:35 PM
Keep in mind that even though the law passed, there was no request for an increase in DROS fees.

jamesob
10-10-2011, 5:10 PM
Everybody stop buying guns, that will take the revenue from them. ;)

Stoic Bacchanal
10-10-2011, 5:33 PM
No, as of the last election cycle the legislature only needs 51% of the vote- thanks CA voters!

GOEX FFF
10-10-2011, 5:44 PM
Everybody stop buying guns, that will take the revenue from them. ;)


I'm sure its been said before....but it all becomes clear when you look at that in reverse.

The state is taking advantage of the panic buying dollars from another law they've created that generates those dollars which they'll later use for their own benefit.

One bill (819) takes DROS fees, another bill (809) starts the panic buying.

AB809 then gets set for 2014 and waits for 2 years while the flood of $$ coming in from abundant DROS fees before the "deadline", generates to record levels.....then the state takes it! :facepalm:
This could be why JB' didn't veto it on the grounds of costs, as the DROS fees they take at the end, would/could help fund it. :facepalm:

newbee1111
10-10-2011, 6:14 PM
Keep in mind that even though the law passed, there was no request for an increase in DROS fees.

Of course, but that still doesn't make it not an illegal tax. I suspect that AB 819 will get injunctioned and overturned faster than the others. Hopefully it will take the entire DROS fee with it or at least drop it down to the miniscule amount that it takes to fund a background check.

newbee1111
10-10-2011, 6:16 PM
I'm sure its been said before....but it all becomes clear when you look at that in reverse.

The state is taking advantage of the panic buying dollars from another law they've created that generates those dollars which they'll later use for their own benefit.

One bill (819) takes DROS fees, another bill (809) starts the panic buying.

AB809 then gets set for 2014 and waits for 2 years while the flood of $$ coming in from abundant DROS fees before the "deadline", generates to record levels.....then the state takes it! :facepalm:
This could be why JB' didn't veto it on the grounds of costs, as the DROS fees they take at the end, would/could help fund it. :facepalm:

Oh my God, that's brilliant. I'd actually be kind of impressed if these bills were just meant as a scam to generate some revenue. But based on our current legislature I'm going assume that was some kind of accident.

Veggie
10-10-2011, 6:56 PM
It is a FEE. Its a bull**** work around to the TAX law requirements. Nothing new.

tenpercentfirearms
10-10-2011, 6:57 PM
Everybody stop buying guns, that will take the revenue from them. ;)

This is a horrible idea!

HowardW56
10-10-2011, 7:22 PM
This is a horrible idea!


I think that would qualify as a genuinely predictable response..... :D

taperxz
10-10-2011, 7:55 PM
This is a horrible idea!

Ehh we won't let ya die. We will set up a donation fund to keep ya going for a while. LOL

monk
10-10-2011, 10:57 PM
I'm sure its been said before....but it all becomes clear when you look at that in reverse.

The state is taking advantage of the panic buying dollars from another law they've created that generates those dollars which they'll later use for their own benefit.

One bill (819) takes DROS fees, another bill (809) starts the panic buying.

AB809 then gets set for 2014 and waits for 2 years while the flood of $$ coming in from abundant DROS fees before the "deadline", generates to record levels.....then the state takes it! :facepalm:
This could be why JB' didn't veto it on the grounds of costs, as the DROS fees they take at the end, would/could help fund it. :facepalm:


Don't panic.

jamesob
10-11-2011, 12:41 AM
This is a horrible idea!

Don't worry Wes you'll still have fresh meat that will buy firearms from you. :)

goodlookin1
10-11-2011, 7:44 AM
I'd wager that an injunction will not be put in place, mainly because the DROS fee is "reasonable" and does not prohibit the purchase of firearms, nor cause a substantial burden. You will still have access to firarms as you did before, only the fee is going towards something else.

This situation is different than AB962, where the restrictions would cause a substantial burden on the purchaser (no mail order) for the duration of the case, not to mention the unconstitutionally vague definition of "handgun ammunition", so the injunction was put in place at least until the courts meted out the decision surrounding its' constitutionality. The DROS fund raid directly affects none of us to the point that we are substantially burdened.

Having said that, I trust the courts will, in the long run, do the right thing and find the DROS fee an unconstitutional tax. But I dont think the courts will see it worthy of an injunction, however.

Kharn
10-11-2011, 8:48 AM
Plus if the state loses, they know exactly who is due a refund.