AB-28 Firearms and Ammunition: Excise Tax... Signed 9/26/23

[RacerAV]

Very true... hope they are already on it!

[TrappedinCalifornia]

A lawsuit against SB2 was filed the day Newsom signed it.

Why haven't we heard about a lawsuit against AB-28 yet? Or, have I just missed the filing and the furor?

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

A lawsuit against SB2 was filed the day Newsom signed it.

Why haven't we heard about a lawsuit against AB-28 yet? Or, have I just missed the filing and the furor?

It isn't operable until mid-2024.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

It isn't operable until mid-2024.

SB2 doesn't go into effect until, I believe, January of 2024.

So, it can't simply be waiting until the law actually goes into effect.

However, if you're trying to indicate that they have more 'time to file'... Okay... But...

[Paladin]

By the sound of what Mark Smith says at 03:00 to 04:30 (Minneapolis Star case), ALL taxes on guns (and parts) and ammo (and reloading equipment and supplies) are UNconstitutional!



https://youtube.com/IS876Sa26XU

[CWM4A1]

Constitutionality has never stopped douche bag politicians in CA. We have seen this for decades and just gets a lot worse in the past 5 years.

[SpudmanWP]

Originally Posted by Paladin

By the sound of what Mark Smith says at 03:00 to 04:30 (Minneapolis Star case), ALL taxes on guns (and parts) and ammo (and reloading equipment and supplies) are UNconstitutional!

I among many others have been pointing to not only the 1983 "Minneapolis Star Tribune Co. v. Commissioner" decision but also the 1936 "Grosjean v. American Press Co." decision as examples of how taxes are an infringement of a right, regardless of how small.

Keep in mind that Minneapolis was 8:1 and Grosjean was unanimous. Even in Minneapolis lone dissent was focused on that the decision did not go far enough to protect the 1st Amendment.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

I among many others have been pointing to not only the 1983 "Minneapolis Star Tribune Co. v. Commissioner" decision but also the 1936 "Grosjean v. American Press Co." decision as examples of how taxes are an infringement of a right, regardless of how small.

Keep in mind that Minneapolis was 8:1 and Grosjean was unanimous. Even in Minneapolis lone dissent was focused on that the decision did not go far enough to protect the 1st Amendment.

Note the caveat, right at the start, of Minneapolis Star Tribune Co. v. Commissioner (bold/italics emphasis mine)...

The First Amendment does not permit applying different taxes to different sectors of the press unless there is a countervailing interest of compelling importance that cannot be achieved with any less restrictive means.

That seems, at least to me, to be the 'needle' they are attempting to thread. From AB-28...

...This act will similarly place a reasonable surtax on firearm and ammunition industry members profiting from the sale of firearms and ammunition in order to generate sustained revenue for programs that are designed to remediate the devastating effects these products cause families and communities across this state...

The tax specified in this act is a modest and reasonable tax on a profitable industry whose lawful and legitimate business activity imposes substantial harmful externalities on California's families, communities, and taxpayers. The modest tax proposed in this measure mirrors the Pittman-Robertson federal excise tax on firearm and ammunition industry participants, is similarly dedicated to funding programs to remediate the harmful externalities of firearm industry commerce, and is similarly unlikely to discourage lawful sales and commerce in firearms or ammunition. A gun policy research review by the Rand Corporation noted that the available "research suggests that moderate tax increases on guns or ammunition would do little to disrupt hunting or recreational gun use."

(q) The revenue from this act would provide sustained, dedicated investments in programs that are effective at addressing and remediating harms caused by firearm and ammunition industry products, including investments in: (1) community gun violence intervention and prevention initiatives that help address risk factors for violent behavior, protect and heal victims, interrupt cycles of shootings, trauma, and retaliation among those at highest risk, and address racial inequality in access to safety for communities of color; (2) gun violence research that helps stakeholders identify leading causes and evidence-based responses to gun violence; (3) initiatives that train health care providers about effective clinical tools for preventing firearm suicide and injury; (4) crime victim services, including mental health services, for victims of mass shootings and other gun homicides, and individuals chronically exposed to gun violence in their community, including students in school districts disproportionately impacted by gun violence in the school or broader community; (5) coordinated efforts to ensure firearm and ammunition purchasers are adequately informed about how to comply with California's gun safety laws and responsibilities associated with safe use and possession of firearms, including child access prevention, and to promote effective and equitable implementation of California's gun safety laws and programs; (6) programs that promote victims' and public safety by ensuring the prompt, safe, and consistent removal of firearms and ammunition from people who become prohibited from possessing them, such as after a gun violence or domestic violence restraining order; and (7) evidence-based activities to effectively and equitably support gun homicide and shooting investigations in order to deliver justice for victims of gun violence in communities bearing the brunt of these tragedies...

In Grosjean v. American Press Co. we see...

...The tax here involved is bad not because it takes money from the pockets of the appellees. If that were all, a wholly different question would be presented. It is bad because, in the light of its history and of its present setting, it is seen to be a deliberate and calculated device in the guise of a tax to limit the circulation of information to which the public is entitled in virtue of the constitutional guaranties. A free press stands as one of the great interpreters between the government and the people. To allow it to be fettered is to fetter ourselves...

What we believe (synonymous, in this case, with "know") to be the motivation and what is claimed in the bill will be the issue. In effect, the claim on their part is cause and effect, while the counter is what Mark Smith says, 'ancillary right.' Thus, the argument comes down to whether it reasonably falls within 'regulating commercial firearm and ammunition manufacturers and sellers' or if it 'infringes' upon the right.

Some would say that a closer, analogous law would be that those who commit the crime, pay the tax. While that sounds good, we also know that such a "tax" would be impractical to apply. Instead, it's likely to come down to what the RAND Corporation said in 2018 (and updated in 2021)... Firearm and Ammunition Taxes...

...Although this research suggests that moderate tax increases on guns or ammunition would do little to disrupt hunting or recreational gun use, the evidence is based on changes in hunting license fees (which are a very small fraction of the total cost of hunting) and may not be congruent with the actual response to significant increases in the price of firearms or ammunition...

Overall, researchers currently have little empirical evidence indicating how taxation would influence firearm-related outcomes, such as violent crime or suicides, or establishing how taxing firearms or ammunition would affect firearm prices, the supply of firearms, or defensive gun use. Marginal increases in price associated with hunting licenses offer little evidence to suggest how taxes would influence recreational gun use. Given that taxation has been a standard policy lever for other potentially harmful goods (e.g., cigarettes, alcohol, and soda or sugary beverages), researchers may be able to derive insights from policy changes in these markets, but there are significant differences in making these comparisons (e.g., firearms are durable goods relative to these other products). Furthermore, one needs to consider the varied purposes for which individuals acquire and retain firearms or ammunition and the relationship between various market sources for guns and ammunition. Empirically, understanding the costs and benefits of taxation in gun markets requires exogenous variation in the price of firearms over time or jurisdiction, which requires imposing price regulations in a market for which regulations are already highly contentious.

Is 11% 'moderate' or pejorative? Do more 'reasonable' alternatives exist in terms of funding what California argues the money will be used to fund? Will the money actually go to funding such endeavors or is it yet another 'tax for a purpose' which will be 'allowed' to roll into the General Fund and be used for 'other purposes?'

These and other questions will likely emerge and need to be addressed, at least at some level. But, my sense is, that's the point. Watch the chaos which ensues and reap the benefits in the mean time has become a standard tactic from the Left and was encapsulated by Reggie Jones-Sawyer when he said that California doesn't care if it's Constitutional, they just go ahead with it anyway. When you know it will take time to reach SCOTUS, if it does, and that the State's Court system and the Ninth Circuit are likely to back California's play rather than the right of the People, what's the 'damage' that will happen during the interim?

[michaelh1951]

In a 1983 Supreme Court decision "Minneapolis Star," the holding was that Minnesota could NOT impose a tax on paper and ink. They held that

The First Amendment does not permit applying different taxes to different sectors of the press unless there is a countervailing interest of compelling importance that cannot be achieved with any less restrictive means.

So couldn't it be argued that there cannot be a different tax on various types of arms....if there is an excise tax on guns and ammo, shouldn't the same tax be required on all arms (defined as anything that can be carried or worn for defense or offense) , for example:

Knives, including kitchen utensils, fishing knives, etc
Baseball bats, golf clubs
Boxing equipment
Canes
etc.....

Let them try to tax all these commonplace items, see how that goes...

[DB>]

Originally Posted by FourT6and2

Let's set aside that this is complete BS from the beginning. But I don't understand how this would even work in practice. An 11% tax that the end consumer doesn't pay? The vendor pays it? What? So I buy a firearm from a gun shop in Texas. They ship it to my FFL here... who pays the 11% tax? The store in Texas sure as s4!t isn't going to agree to pay it. So either they'll refuse to do business with CA residents, or the receiving FFL will have to pay it? Why would an FFL handling a simple transfer pay 11% out of their own pocket? They're going to charge that to the consumer... but if the bill says they can't do that... then they will refuse to do transfers. That will effectively end all second-hand/used sales as well as all out-of-state sales/transfers.

Not only that... but any firearms/ammo sold by the store wills simply be met with an 11% (if not more) upcharge to cover the cost of doing business. The state is effectively STEALING profit from the retail store. If their profit margin on a firearm is... let's say 15%, now they'are only making 4% profit???? What the hell!

You're catching on... if they can't ban one way, they will prevent, restrict or make economically unfeasible some other way. Not to mention what the "zero tolerance" FFL compliance audits are doing....

As I've called around checking FFL's to do PPT's, I've noticed that many FFL's are GONE, other businesses like Pawn shops let their licenses lapse because it was just too much hassle. Many FFL's are adding odd "terms" or refusing to do certain types of transfers (like Sportsmans Warehouse refusing to do "off rosters" as a new "policy", or a shop I called recently ONLY PPT'ing shotguns).

Among the remaining FFLs there are a few opportunists charging "extra" garbage fees way over and above the LEGAL DROS fees, some only doing transfers on certain limited days/times, or seemingly on whatever whim...

It's the rare shop that charges the legally permitted rate, knows the laws well enough to know how unusual, off roster, or "scary looking" guns can be transferred legally, and these few shops are swamped, with full storage safes... Ammo transfers? Fugeddabout it.... and it's getting worse!

There is a "war" on guns (and fossil fuels, but that's another rant!), "conservatives" and any enterprise that will support those frowned upon viewpoints. No doubt they hope to achieve the ends through "1000 cuts" so they don't have to use the F-15's and nukes on American soil... King George was a wanker in comparison to the evil schemes in play against the American populace. And it ain't just CA, "they" are emboldened nationally.

The short version is: IF they could shut down every gun store nationwide tomorrow, they would... but they have to eliminate them a few at a time so it doesn't seem so insidious.

[SpudmanWP]

Have there been any lawsuits again AB28?

[SpudmanWP]

Have there been any lawsuits against AB28?

[Reno-Kid]

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

Depending on how you define 'tax' (which is why they are often called "fees") it's actually more than that...

1. 10%-11% Federal Excise Tax
2. State Sales Tax (variable throughout the State)
3. Firearms Safety Certificate, $25 (even if only purchasing a single firearm in your life)
4. DROS
5. Now, the 11% excise tax

That's just to own. To carry an handgun, you need to add...

6. Concealed carry course, $225 (give or take, I haven't looked recently)
7. License fees (In some cases, the fees can run nearly $1,000, including the CCW course.)

Such doesn't address the actual price of the firearm or ammunition.

8. carbon tax from lead. % to be determined

[SpudmanWP]

Does anyone know if there is a lawsuit on the tax?