AB 1227 Levine - Firearms and ammunition: excise tax (It's back)

[BeAuMaN]

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...02120220AB1227

Hey all; I have some updates on the other bills but I've been rather busy as of late, however this one just came through yesterday, so I thought I'd post it.

AB-1227 is a resurrection of the previous attempt by Levine, AB-1223, which died after languishing for so long (See Previous Thread). This naturally is brought about via our favorite legislative technique known as gut-and-amend.

AB-1227 would create a 10% tax on the sales price of a handgun and 11% tax on the sales price of a long gun, rifle, firearm precursor part, and ammunition by a licensed firearm/ammunition/"firearm precursor part" dealer/vendor. This money would be deposited into the "Gun Violence Prevention, Healing, and Recovery Fund", which doesn't have specific purpose at the moment; just a big money bag for legislators to fund their gun bills. This bill would have an emergency clause, meaning it would go into effect immediately once signed and chaptered.

The language from a general quick read is almost exactly the same as the attempt that preceded this (AB-1223).

[ThortheDog]

Thanks for posting. Appreciate your taking the time to keep us up to speed on all this legislative stuff.

[TruOil]

Funding "gun violence" research that is already being funded out of our DROS fees...or just adding another fee to create a "victims of gun violence" fund? Why is it that the Legislature thinks law abiding gun owners should pay the cost of gun violence attributable to violent criminals who typically obtain their arms illegally? The ONLY viable rationale for this law is to make firearm ownership more expensive across the board.

As it is, the cost of a background check is about $20, so the rest of the charge is a tax. Plus sales tax, add this excise tax, plus that portion of the cost of a firearm that is devoted to conservation. To say nothing of the $25 tax to pay for a FSC (it's a tax because the actual cost of producing the pamphlet and test materials is pennies.) The only reason I don't include the FFL transfer fee is that the FFL gets to keep it.

[71MUSTY]

I actually hope it passes because then California will finally be a true 2A state, Black market, but 2A

[cz74]

Wiener and Levine come up with the worst of the worst stuff. Those two smoking some good stuff.

[johnnyh75]

thanks for the rea post there trying to tax us to death it only hurt law biding gun owners criminals will do what criminals do

[cdtx2001]

Sweet!! Hope it passes.

After this, we can work on legislation to collect a small fee before anyone can vote. After that, a fee and permit if you wish to not speak to the police. Finally, a fee and permit if you insist on police having a warrant before searching your house.

[Disconscious]

anyone got a letter template to send to state senator / assemblymember to block this?

[Kyle1886]

Obviously these folks don't remember the results of prohibition; speakeasy's, back door sales, and moonshine.

Think 'ghost guns' are a problem now, keep pushing the good folks that want to attempt to follow the law. American ingenuity will prevail.

Isn't he up for election this go around? (Not that it really matters).

My calling and sending letters and email since the 80's to the powers that be have done not one whit of good.

Respectfully
Kyle

[TonyKat]

Reno May just posted a video about this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9fTgKwhXRY

[floogy]

Originally Posted by cdtx2001

Sweet!! Hope it passes.

After this, we can work on legislation to collect a small fee before anyone can vote. After that, a fee and permit if you wish to not speak to the police. Finally, a fee and permit if you insist on police having a warrant before searching your house.

Yeah I hope it passes too.

Taxing a right is something that the courts, even the leftist 9th can actually rule on. They're already taxing the right with dros fees, why not just add another infringement.

Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk

[Capybara]

Originally Posted by floogy

Yeah I hope it passes too.

Taxing a right is something that the courts, even the leftist 9th can actually rule on. They're already taxing the right with dros fees, why not just add another infringement.

Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk

It's such a lose-lose though. It will take years to even reach the 9th, much less SCOTUS. And unless Justice Thomas' NYRPA ruling female dog slaps the clowns on the 9th, they'll just agree that it's cool for California to do this. I read that the 9th is 50 for 50 on ruling anti 2A.

[The Gleam]

----

[Capybara]

Originally Posted by The Gleam

----

Amen Brother!

[Uncivil Engineer]

Originally Posted by floogy

Yeah I hope it passes too.

Taxing a right is something that the courts, even the leftist 9th can actually rule on. They're already taxing the right with dros fees, why not just add another infringement.

Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk

The entire NFA is based on taxing what is otherwise is a right. As much as I want it to be the case I don't see how this gets struck down but the nfa stands. Of course I would prefer them all to go but I don't expect them to.

The courts are rather happy to let them tax anything. Roberts let them tax literally nothing, as the Obamacare mandate is a tax on non action.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[floogy]

Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer

The entire NFA is based on taxing what is otherwise is a right. As much as I want it to be the case I don't see how this gets struck down but the nfa stands. Of course I would prefer them all to go but I don't expect them to.

The courts are rather happy to let them tax anything. Roberts let them tax literally nothing, as the Obamacare mandate is a tax on non action.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Yeah, it would seem that calling it a "tax" rather than a fee or fine is just fine, as long as it's called that. Except poll taxes, those are racist and bad, taxing other rights good.

Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk

[Scratch705]

For those that want this to pass so it can be challenged in court. Remeber They are not taxing at sale, they are taxing the dealers/manufacturers. So it can easily be argued that They aren't taxing a "right". They can argue that it is the greedy businesses that are passing the extra cost to consumers.

[chris]

Passed and signed by Newsom before the ink dries.

[DolphinFan]

Totally unconstitutional.
Can’t tax the pencil or paper manufacturer to fund efforts against hate speech.

[Uncivil Engineer]

Originally Posted by Scratch705

For those that want this to pass so it can be challenged in court. Remeber They are not taxing at sale, they are taxing the dealers/manufacturers. So it can easily be argued that They aren't taxing a "right". They can argue that it is the greedy businesses that are passing the extra cost to consumers.

If they aren't taxing at sale will out-of-state purchase not be taxed?

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[TruOil]

The tax specified in this act is a modest and reasonable excise tax on sellers whose lawful and legitimate commercial activity still imposes enormous harmful externalities on California’s families, communities, and taxpayers. The modest tax proposed in this measure mirrors the Pittman-Robertson federal excise tax on other firearm and ammunition industry participants and is similarly unlikely to discourage lawful sales and commerce in firearms, ammunition, or firearm precursor parts. A gun policy research review by the Rand Corporation in 2018 noted that the available “research suggests that moderate tax increases on guns or ammunition would do little to disrupt hunting or recreational gun use.”

Really? If inflation isn't bad enough, the cost of guns and ammo and parts will go up 10-11% that will be added to the sales price. P.S.: does not apply to LEOs (of course).

"Commencing July 1, 2023, an excise tax is hereby imposed upon licensed firearms dealers, ammunition vendors, and firearm precursor part vendors, at the rate of 10 percent of the sales price of a handgun, and 11 percent of the sales price of a long gun, rifle, firearm precursor part, and ammunition sold in this state to mirror the Pittman-Robertson Act federal excise tax rate."

Sufficiently ambiguous language to suggest that it is applied to an interstate sale by the in-state FFL at the time of transfer just as the state sales tax is if not already paid.

"California is facing a public health crisis due to gun violence. According to the Gun Violence Archive, in the first five months of 2021, there have been 240 mass shootings in America. From January 1, 2021, to June 1, 2021, a total of 18,132 Americans were killed due to gun violence. It is necessary for this act to take effect immediately in order to address this ongoing public health crisis at the earliest possible time." Pretty ****ty source. As I recall, the FBI just reported that there were 19,000 or so firearms homicides for the full year 2021. And what do mass shootings in other states have to do with whether this is an issue in California?

[Kyle1886]

What is one man's 'modest tax' is another man's burden.

For an 800.00 piece would that be, counting everything, including the silly FSC, amount to between 150.00 to 190.00 cost before the charge of the arm?

Just a quick guess, haven't bought a firearm in a few years.

American ingenuity will prevail.

Respectfully
Kyle

[Mr. Beretta]

So......Does either party (buyer or seller) or the FFL have to pay this "tax" conducting a PPT ?

How about a ammo transfer / sale between buyer or seller?

Out of state gun purchase (new or used) sent to your FFL?

Out of state ammo purchase sent to your FFL?

[TruOil]

Out of state gun and ammo purchase sent to your FFL?

"sold in this state" appears to mean no excise tax on such purchases. The excise tax is supposed to be imposed on the in-state seller (who will of course add that amount to the sales price of the item because they cannot afford not to).

[Mr. Beretta]

Originally Posted by TruOil

Out of state gun and ammo purchase sent to your FFL?

"sold in this state" appears to mean no excise tax on such purchases. The excise tax is supposed to be imposed on the in-state seller (who will of course add that amount to the sales price of the item because they cannot afford not to).

So.......I sell (PPT) a firearm to another person in my city (in Ca.). Do I have to pay the tax since I'm the seller? Plus do I have to reveal the sale price to the state, to make sure I pay the correct amount of tax?

[Tankhatch]

Gun Violence Archive total numbers of deaths from "gun violence" and CDC total numbers of deaths from "gun violence" do not compute.
GVA "Evidence Based Research - since 2013" uses newspaper / media postings, as a reliable information resource.
San Jose looking for a reason to enact and using data from non governmental sources, to promote it's agenda.
Sad state of mind.
Researching GVA
aka Gunviolencearchive Inc. is a 501(c)(3) organization, with an IRS ruling year of 2014,a 501(c)(3) organization
Per IRS
""To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.""
Per Charity Navigator, they are unable to rate this charity because:
Required submissions to IRS for; Finance & Accountability and Total Revenue and Expenses have not been filed

[Tankhatch]

CDC facts on US deaths in 2020.
The top ten ways
https://wisqars.cdc.gov/fatal-leading
After reaching page, hit "submit request"
If the powers that be, spend money on programs that prevents all accidental poisonings and stops all suicides, firearm violence in numbers of deaths, would be small. (homicides)
Maybe a unrealistic goal, but so are gun taxes and gun laws to prevent "gun violence"