AB-28 Firearms and Ammunition: Excise Tax... When You Don't Succeed, Keep Threatening

[Luciansulla]

Because they did tryfor a higher percentage that in prior years?and had it fail in the last six attempts.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Originally Posted by ll-Rafael-ll

Why 11%? Why not 50%? Or 1000%?
Are the dems this retarded? Like if you're gonna pass a bill like that, go all out!!

It's the camel's nose under the tent.

Once it is in place, raising it becomes less of a problem and draws less attention (not to mention scrutiny) when it happens and/or when the revenue generated is simply moved into the General Fund and ends up going for causes totally unrelated to the stated intent.

Why sprint when you can cruise?

[rational_behavior]

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

It's the camel's nose under the tent.

Once it is in place, raising it becomes less of a problem and draws less attention (not to mention scrutiny) when it happens and/or when the revenue generated is simply moved into the General Fund and ends up going for causes totally unrelated to the stated intent.

Why sprint when you can cruise?

Exactly. Checkers/Chess. Even if they move the Overton Window an inch, it still counts as a victory for the gun banners. A completely different paradigm for the pro-2A community is called for. I may be a cynic, but this shpiel by Auron MacIntyre aptly captures the problem with the "muh Constitution!" crowd.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JCGavCmlT4

[Supersapper]

Originally Posted by ar15barrels

Have you ever had an FFL ask you the dollar value of the PPT sale and then try to charge you sales tax on that value?
This proposed excise tax is the same thing and will work the same way.

"Retail Sale" means from the dealer's inventory.

No, but the state and county basically "says" your house is worth this much and bases the property tax amount on it. With this state being what it is, I'm ruling out nothing, hence the question.

[zukieast]

They Tied it to the PitMan Robertson Tax on manufacturers which is 11%. In the Bill they actually try to justify the tax to bypass Bruin by stating that there is already a well established tax on Firearms and Ammunition.

(k) 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.
(l) The National Rifle Association has referred to the Pittman-Robertson federal Firearms and Ammunition Excise tax as a ?legislative model? and ?friend of the hunter,? and NSSF has repeatedly emphasized the importance of this federal firearm industry excise tax as well. A 2019 statement by an NSSF director published on NSSF?s internet website emphasized that ?an often overlooked, and certainly under-communicated benefit, is the impact that excise taxes on firearms and ammunition have on conservation and wildlife populations,? and a similar 2018 statement from NSSF praised Key Pittman and Willis Robertson, the legislators who sponsored the Pittman-Robertson excise tax, as ?heroes of the most successful conservation model in the world.?
(m) This act would similarly provide dedicated revenue to sustain and expand effective gun violence prevention, healing, and recovery programs for families and communities across California, particularly in communities most disproportionately impacted by gun violence.
(n) This act is consistent with our nation?s longstanding historical tradition of regulating commercial firearm and ammunition manufacturers and sellers, including through federal, state, and local taxes on this commercial activity. An 1883 California statute, for instance, directed local governments to provide for payment of all revenue assessed as a tax, or received for licenses, on the storage, manufacture, and sale of gunpowder and related products in order to fund a ?Fireman?s Charitable Fund? to support professionals tasked with remediating the collateral impacts of firearm-related commercial activity on public safety through fire risk.
(o) In the historical record, other states, including Mississippi (1844), North Carolina (1857), Georgia (1866), Alabama (1867), Hawaii (1870), Nebraska (1895), Florida (1898), Wyoming (1899), and Virginia (1926), have similarly enacted longstanding commercial, occupational, or other taxes on those selling, purchasing, or possessing firearms and other dangerous weapons.
(p) 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.?

[tenemae]

You know what the real firearms tax is? Having to pay advocacy groups to fund the legal challenges in court just to keep the 2A alive.

End qualified immunity now.

[Elgatodeacero]

I think the state of California is going to accidentally kill the 1937 Pittman-Robertson Act.

The Pittman Robertson Act has been very positive for hunters, shooters and anyone that goes outdoors to hike or fish, but it seems like it is unconstitutional along with AB28.

Here is an excerpt from a NY District Court opinion from 2012 which has a nice summary of the law of taxing Constitutional rights.

876 F.Supp.2d 246
United States District Court, S.D. New York.
Hui W. KWONG, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Michael BLOOMBERG, et al., Defendants.
No. 11 Civ. 2356(JGK)
March 26, 2012.


The plaintiffs first argue that the $340 fee is impermissible under the standards that govern the imposition of fees on the exercise of constitutionally protected activities—here, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
The Supreme Court's fee jurisprudence, which has addressed the imposition of fees on expressive activities protected by the First Amendment, makes clear that, while the Government may not tax the exercise of constitutionally protected activities, it may impose a fee designed to defray the administrative costs of regulating the protected activity. In Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569, 61 S.Ct. 762, 85 L.Ed. 1049 (1941), the Court found that a state statute requiring marchers to obtain licenses and prepay fees with a permissible range of from a “nominal amount” to $300 a day to parade on public streets was permissible because the fee was “not a revenue tax, but one to meet the expense *254 incident to the administration of the act and to the maintenance of public order in the matter licensed.” Id. at 577, 61 S.Ct. 762 (citation omitted). The Court stated that “[t]here is nothing contrary to the Constitution in the charge of a fee limited to the purpose stated.” Id. In contrast, in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 63 S.Ct. 870, 87 L.Ed. 1292 (1943), the Court invalidated a city ordinance that, as applied, required religious groups to pay a license fee of $1.50 a day before distributing literature. The Court found the ordinance to be “a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights[,]” id. at 113, 63 S.Ct. 870, because the license fee was “not a nominal fee, imposed as a regulatory measure to defray the expense of policing the activities in question[,]” id. at 113–14, 63 S.Ct. 870.
Subsequent cases have thus analyzed the permissibility of fees imposed on the exercise of expressive activities by examining whether those fees were designed to defray, and did not exceed, the administrative costs of regulating the protected activity.5 See, e.g., Int'l Women's Day March Planning Comm. v. City of San Antonio, 619 F.3d 346, 369–71 (5th Cir.2010); Sullivan v. City of Augusta, 511 F.3d 16, 37–38 (1st Cir.2007); Nationalist Movement v. City of York, 481 F.3d 178, 183 (3d Cir.2007); Mainstream Mktg. Servs., Inc. v. F.T.C., 358 F.3d 1228, 1247–48 (10th Cir.2004); N.E. Ohio Coal. for Homeless v. City of Cleveland, 105 F.3d 1107, 1109–10 (6th Cir.1997); Nat'l Awareness Found. v. Abrams, 50 F.3d 1159, 1165–66 (2d Cir.1995); Ctr. for Auto Safety, Inc. v. Athey, 37 F.3d 139, 144–46 (4th Cir.1994); South–Suburban Hous. Ctr. v. Greater S. Suburban Bd. of Realtors, 935 F.2d 868, 897–98 (7th Cir.1991).
This standard has also been applied by those few courts that have considered fees imposed on the exercise of Second Amendment rights. See Justice v. Town of Cicero, 827 F.Supp.2d 835, 842 (N.D.Ill.2011) ($25 application fee for registration of firearms was permissible because, “[l]ike the fee in [Cox ], [the] registration fee ... is ‘not a revenue tax, but one to meet the expense incident to the administration of the act and to the maintenance of public order in the matter licensed’ ” (quoting Cox, 312 U.S. at 577, 61 S.Ct. 762)); Heller v. District of Columbia (“Heller II”), 698 F.Supp.2d 179, 192 (D.D.C.2010) (upholding firearm registration requirements, including imposition of fees for registration, fingerprinting and ballistic identification totaling $60, concluding that fees were “intended to compensate the District for the costs of fingerprinting registrants, performing ballistic tests, processing applications and maintaining a database of firearms owners”), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C.Cir.2011); see also D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 24, ? 2320.

[Silence Dogood]

FPC encourages calling Newsom’s office at (916)-445-2841 to urge a veto.

https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status...286072251?s=46

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by ll-Rafael-ll

Why 11%? Why not 50%? Or 1000%?
Are the dems this retarded? Like if you're gonna pass a bill like that, go all out!!

Read about salami slicing tactics, and many gun prohibitionist political maneuvers make sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_slicing_tactics

[ar15barrels]

Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero

I think the state of California is going to accidentally kill the 1937 Pittman-Robertson Act.

I think so too.

[Dvrjon]

According to the California Highway Patrol (CHP), there were 216,366 traffic accidents in the state in 2022, which resulted in 3,854 fatalities and 165,978 injuries.

Source

Any Legislators/governors up for an 11% motor vehicle excise tax on autos to pay for victims of and reduce automobile violence?

No?

Bueler?

Crickets.

[SpudmanWP]

This is just to get it in the door as it matches the Federal tax.
Once people are used to it, it will go up.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Originally Posted by rational_behavior

...I may be a cynic, but this shpiel by Auron MacIntyre aptly captures the problem with the "muh Constitution!" crowd.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JCGavCmlT4

Every society needs a 'base' or 'touchstone' to work from. Otherwise, you have anarchy.

It is, essentially, the difference between "Originalism" and "Living Constitutionalism" in that the former want a fairly consistent standard to work from and the latter want to be able to be able to pronounce 'standards of the moment' based on 'feelings of the moment.' The former bears the hallmarks of a touchstone. The latter promotes inconsistency and inconsistency leads to many things, including self-doubt.

In that sense, by trying to claim individual understandings such as "muh Constitution," proponents simply feed people's sense of doubt about whether the Constitution actually works; which, in turn, feeds the narrative the Left wants... The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed...

...The idea of constitutionalism is that there needs to be some higher law that is more difficult to change than the rest of the legal order. Having a constitution is about setting more sacrosanct rules than the ones the legislature can pass day to day. Our Constitution's guarantee of two senators to each state is an example. And ever since the American founders were forced to add a Bill of Rights to get their handiwork passed, national constitutions have been associated with some set of basic freedoms and values that transient majorities might otherwise trample...

It is a breath of fresh air to witness progressives offering bold new proposals to reform courts and shift power to elected officials. But even such proposals raise the question: Why justify our politics by the Constitution or by calls for some renovated constitutional tradition? It has exacted a terrible price in distortion and distraction to transform our national life into a contest over reinterpreting our founding charter consistently with what majorities believe now...

In a second stage, though, Americans could learn simply to do politics through ordinary statute rather than staging constant wars over who controls the heavy weaponry of constitutional law from the past. If legislatures just passed rules and protected values majorities believe in, the distinction between "higher law" and everyday politics effectively disappears...

In so doing, Congress would be pretty openly defying the Constitution to get to a more democratic order - and for that reason would need to insulate the law from judicial review. Fundamental values like racial equality or environmental justice would be protected not by law that stands apart from politics but - as they typically are - by ordinary expressions of popular will. And the basic structure of government, like whether to elect the president by majority vote or to limit judges to fixed terms, would be decided by the present electorate, as opposed to one from some foggy past.

A politics of the American future like this would make clear our ability to engage in the constant reinvention of our society under our own power, without the illusion that the past stands in the way.

In a sense, it's a contradiction to the Supreme Court quote I regularly post from a 1943 decision...

...The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections...

Even Rocky Balboa gets it...

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

Source

Any Legislators/governors up for an 11% motor vehicle excise tax on autos to pay for victims of and reduce automobile violence?

No?

Bueler?

Crickets.

Be careful what you wish for. Excise taxes on internal combustion vehicles are probably around the corners.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven

Be careful what you wish for. Excise taxes on internal combustion vehicles are probably around the corners.

Electric vehicles kill and maim, too.

The general populace will immediately grind them into the dirt because in CA, cars are GOOD.

[Dan_Eastvale]

11% excise tax on gas engines to make them unaffordable, claiming "climate emergency"