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

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by ar15barrels

That's sales tax which is already paid if purchased through a marketplace facilitator or from a seller who already collects it online.
You only have to collect sales tax when the buyer has NOT already paid it elsewhere.

Since the money does not change hands for a transfer, I don't know how you would report the money your shop never touched in your gross sales.

The state sales tax auditors will make us collect it. They consider it a California purchase. That?s why gunbroker sends the state the sales tax money. (Per SCOTUS). They can?t make them collect the new tax but I guarantee the state will assess the tax via CA dealer.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by FourT6and2

Gun shop is gonna lose 11% off every applicable sale. They have to make it up somehow... They aren't going to just willingly pay more money to the state. They're gonna raise prices to compensate. Your cost of doing business goes up... you raise prices. Isn't that Biz 101?

UNLESS... they can add this tax as a line item on the receipt. But I thought I read something about the state making the business pay it and not allowing them to pass it on to the consumer. I'll have a closer look at the bill.

EDIT:
Read bill, yeah doesn't say anything about not being allowed to pass it on to consumer. I guess the article I read was wrong about that.

Their margins are probably too small to handle an 11% tax on gross sales of arms and ammo.Especially with the new surveillance law coming on line, a law that is intended to force out all but dedicated high volume shops and all the table top ffls. Buy before the first or your favorite mom & pop shop may be closed afterwards.

[bool1tholz]

If there isn't an injunction to stop the law many retailers won't be ready by July 1, 2024. People are not yet realizing how disruptive this law may be.

Online retailers that are also a FFL won't sell to California until they get things sorted out.

This is the first law that would force retailers to classify precursor parts. Nobody knows what precursor parts are.

The new tax can't be mixed with the sales tax so point of sale software will need updating.
Nobody has even started updating software since this law is flying under the radar.

What will brownells Midwayusa and psa do? Will they be ready July 1? Probably not.

[SpudmanWP]

WHATTTTTT

A jurno got it worng

[SpudmanWP]

Originally Posted by bool1tholz

The new tax can't be mixed with the sales tax so point of sale software will need updating.
Nobody has even started updating software since this law is flying under the radar.

Basically, the database and supporting software will need to track two kinds of tax, sales and excise, on an item-by-item basis. Additionally, it would need the ability to not apply either tax if the applicable customer type is exempted.
The database is relatively easy but the software is not..

[johnnyh75]

it only effect us the law abiding gun owners it's just criminals just get there stuff on the street from home burglaries it's just going to detour new gun owner ship for does with less means to defend them self or getting in to the gun owner hobby becoming the haves and haves not!! tax and tax for ammo I just suggest getting your COE and getting ammo out state for guns its going to hurt 11% on new purchased I ALLWAYS contacted my legislator of my distric ON GUN RIGHTS BUT it goes on deaf ears

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

Remember that the average VAT in Europe is something like 21%, with the highest running somewhere between 25% and 27%.

So... With the 10% Federal Tax, the average sales tax of 7.25%, and, now, the 11% tax, you're actually talking about a 28.25% (or more, depending on your sales tax locally) tax on firearms and ammunition in California.

Ultimately, that's likely to be part of the argument defending it, just like with gas prices inching their way up, it's just the nature of the 'market' you see. Uh...

Remember that we threw the European governments out of this nation due to unjust taxation. Not a very compelling argument for following the Europeans now. But, we can then endorse the Euro and Liters for gasoline purchase.

And gas prices did not inch their way up as a part of the market. The State government levied another tax on the fuel and demands different formulations for seasons.

[FourT6and2]

Originally Posted by johnnyh75

it only effect us the law abiding gun owners it's just criminals just get there stuff on the street from home burglaries it's just going to detour new gun owner ship for does with less means to defend them self or getting in to the gun owner hobby becoming the haves and haves not!! tax and tax for ammo I just suggest getting your COE and getting ammo out state for guns its going to hurt 11% on new purchased I ALLWAYS contacted my legislator of my distric ON GUN RIGHTS BUT it goes on deaf ears

You're really gonna hop in your car and drive across state lines to buy ammo to save 11% on an online purchase? I mean... do the math I guess. If it's cheaper to pay for your time + gas compared to shipping on ammo + CA sales tax + 11% excise tax, then go for it. As for me... stores don't typically carry the kind of ammo I need and in the quantity I need. So online is the only way to buy.

If vendors in other states don't force the collection of the 11% excise tax on ammo, then ok. But I don't think anybody knows how this is gonna turn out.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

Remember that we threw the European governments out of this nation due to unjust taxation. Not a very compelling argument for following the Europeans now. But, we can then endorse the Euro and Liters for gasoline purchase.

And gas prices did not inch their way up as a part of the market. The State government levied another tax on the fuel and demands different formulations for seasons.

You did note the quote marks around 'market' - right?

VAT stands for 'value added tax;' i.e., it is (supposedly) not a market device either, yet it does have a direct influence on the market.

Gas prices have "inched" their way up in comparison to what Europe pays and what Democrats want. From our perspective, they've taken a meteoric jump. From a conservationist or Liberal or Democrat or similar perspective, they have not risen quickly enough. Last month, from Barron's... Gasoline Prices Are Rising - Again. The Russia-Ukraine War Isn't the Only Cause...

Retail gasoline prices are inching up again, to a national average of $3.829 a gallon on Monday afternoon, according to AAA.

Pump prices are 8.3% higher, or 29 cents a gallon more, than last month's average of $3.537 a gallon.

While lower than last year's high of more than $5 a gallon, it's still a blow to household budgets, especially during the summer when people are driving more for vacations and excursions. Falling energy prices earlier this year helped cut growth in the consumer price index to a 3% annual rate in June...

In a sense, it's a matter of perspective. While $5 - $6 a gallon in California may seem excessive to you and I and other states, it's not where those in power want it to be in order to create or enhance demand for alternatives. Remember, you can't judge 'everything' by what happens in California as California, along with New York and a couple of other locations, tend to 'lead the way.' In a sense, California, et al. are the canaries in the coal mine.

But, that leads us back to the 'inching' up and 'market' metaphors. You'll note that the Barron's piece references influences other than taxes as the 'driving forces' behind the rise in prices. Yet, here in California, we know it has as much to do with domestic politics as 'market' forces. For instance... Seasonal Gas Prices Explained

...In California, the season for summer-blend fuels is longer than the rest of the country. Both Northern and Southern California?s summer-blend requirements run through the end of October. This exacerbated supply issues within the state in early October 2012, when fires at two large refineries limited state-specific production and caused wholesale and retail gas prices to spike to record levels...

Are the refinery issues strictly a result of market demands or are they equally a result of business decisions to keep costs down? What about speculation? Politics? In short, oil/gas prices are not contingent solely on 'market forces' and haven't been for decades.

Even during COVID, it was 'discovered' that the conservationists may have had a point to their argument when it was realized... Before-and-after photos show the dramatic effect lockdowns had on pollution around the world in 2020. This included in Los Angeles (before and after lockdown)...



The problem is that they never seem to include discourse over what such mandates and other machinations would mean to an individual's quality of life. It's kinda like the urban planner's dream of no one ever being required to go more than a mile or two from their homes in their lifetimes to meet all their needs. In fact, there are those who maintain that COVID was, in part, a grandiose 'experiment' to see if such could be implemented on a large scale to achieve a variety of ends, some of which we would heartily take issue with.

It's why I see taxation on firearms and ammunition in a similar vein. As we've seen, there is very little Government is no longer allowed to 'tax' so long as it is done using 'acceptable' logic/argument to the courts. Think about Obamacare and the furor it created over mandating health insurance; i.e., Government demand that you purchase a product. You'll note that was not an 'original' idea, just a different form of application. Think about mandated car insurance, seat belts, etc. Such things are also a form of 'taxation' as they are an increase in the cost to consumers/users due to Government action/interference and those mandates have an impact on market forces. So... Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Or, perhaps, more insidiously, was it consumer demand or constituency influence, which, itself, is a form of 'consumer demand?'

For those who yell that you can't tax a Constitutional right, bear in mind that bus left the station LONG ago. While a poll tax may not be constitutional, how many things can you name which are taxed that you consider a 'right?' Before you respond, remember the 10th Amendment states...

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

How many of those powers have been proactively retained by the people and how many have been ceded to local and state governments through a variety of actions/inactions? Don't all points on the political spectrum use Government, in some form, as a means to influence 'market' factors? Governments' Influence on Markets...

Free markets are often conceptualized as having little to no interference from the government. However, in reality governments do step in to stabilize markets, regulate transactions, provide institutional frameworks, and enforce rules around contract law and property rights. Governments can also intervene when markets fail in the form of bailouts and other emergency measures...

It's the difference between abstract or theoretical constructs and real world application. Thus, the quote marks around 'market'...

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

Remember that the average VAT in Europe is something like 21%, with the highest running somewhere between 25% and 27%.

So... With the 10% Federal Tax, the average sales tax of 7.25%, and, now, the 11% tax, you're actually talking about a 28.25% (or more, depending on your sales tax locally) tax on firearms and ammunition in California.

Ultimately, that's likely to be part of the argument defending it, just like with gas prices inching their way up, it's just the nature of the 'market' you see. Uh...

[chris]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

Remember that we threw the European governments out of this nation due to unjust taxation. Not a very compelling argument for following the Europeans now. But, we can then endorse the Euro and Liters for gasoline purchase.

And gas prices did not inch their way up as a part of the market. The State government levied another tax on the fuel and demands different formulations for seasons.

It also doesn't help that Newsom has pretty much stopped any new oil or gas drilling in the state. Now we import up to 60% of our oil from across the globe.

Only two countries make our gas that is Canada and South Korea that adds significant cost since it has to come by tanker.

California government just sucks and does everything it can to screw people over.


EV's I hope one day they pay the same taxes we pay for fuel for every KwH they use to charge they are charged not only the electricity rate but plus the .59 cent tax we pay. Make them feel it.

That is just my opinion for the pay your fair share crowd.


This ammo tax is nothing more than a punitive tax to make people pay for the actions of criminals.

[michaelh1951]

It will be tough to argue that this excise tax on guns and ammo is unconstitutional when a similar federal tax goes unquestioned.

Maybe it's time to fight both the Federal and State taxes

[abinsinia]

If anyone is interested there was a prior case on excise taxes on firearms. The government in the Mariana Islands levied a $1000 excise tax on handguns.

Here is the opinion which strikes down the excise tax. It starts at the bottom of page 47,

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...0026/4687/109/

[SpudmanWP]

Originally Posted by michaelh1951

It will be tough to argue that this excise tax on guns and ammo is unconstitutional when a similar federal tax goes unquestioned.

Maybe it's time to fight both the Federal and State taxes

Not really as the historical burden to allow it was different pre-Bruen. Keep in mind that the Bruen law that was overturned was from the 1910s and since any Federal excise tax is younger than that, they are all fair game.

Not only do you have the Bruen THT test, but there are 2 direct unanimous SCOTUS rulings that say it was unconstitutional when done to the 1st Amendment. SCOTUS made a point in Bruen that the 2nd is to be treated the same as the rest.

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by michaelh1951

It will be tough to argue that this excise tax on guns and ammo is unconstitutional when a similar federal tax goes unquestioned.

Maybe it's time to fight both the Federal and State taxes

Maybe? Hell yes, fight them all! Every single gun tax, restriction, and ban on the books should fall.

The sole reason why the Second Amendment community does not challenge all infringements simultaneously comes down to prioritization. Semi-automatic weapons bans are more important than excise taxes. Open carry prohibitions are more onerous than firearm owners identification cards.

In due time, we must fight every last issue.

[yacko]

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

You did note the quote marks around 'market' - right?



Even during COVID, it was 'discovered' that the conservationists may have had a point to their argument when it was realized... Before-and-after photos show the dramatic effect lockdowns had on pollution around the world in 2020. This included in Los Angeles (before and after lockdown)...



.

Such a poor attempt at making an arguement. It is completely disingenuous.

Anyone that lives anywhere near LA knows that depending on time of year, wind, storms affect the air quality.

There are good days and bad days. And bad months.

I saw the news in spring after all the rains that showed satelite pictures of california showing all the green from the rain- They compared that to a picture the year before taken in August. And who woulda thunk there was a lot of brown in that side by side comparison....

You must watch that same news channel.

[ar15barrels]

Originally Posted by yacko

Such a poor attempt at making an arguement. It is completely disingenuous.

Anyone that lives anywhere near LA knows that depending on time of year, wind, storms affect the air quality.

There are good days and bad days. And bad months.

I saw the news in spring after all the rains that showed satelite pictures of california showing all the green from the rain- They compared that to a picture the year before taken in August. And who woulda thunk there was a lot of brown in that side by side comparison....

You must watch that same news channel.

Exactly.
You can make any weather related argument you want based on picking different pictures from different times of year.
They don't SAY that the pictures are from the same time of year but let people assume that.

[tenemae]

And here's a photo from 2019 before the lockdowns. That comparison was cherry-picking of the worst kind

https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/lo...0839-295460999

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Originally Posted by yacko

Such a poor attempt at making an arguement. It is completely disingenuous.

Anyone that lives anywhere near LA knows that depending on time of year, wind, storms affect the air quality.

There are good days and bad days. And bad months.

I saw the news in spring after all the rains that showed satelite pictures of california showing all the green from the rain- They compared that to a picture the year before taken in August. And who woulda thunk there was a lot of brown in that side by side comparison....

You must watch that same news channel.

You did note the quote marks around 'discovered' - right?

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

...Are the refinery issues strictly a result of market demands or are they equally a result of business decisions to keep costs down? What about speculation? Politics? In short, oil/gas prices are not contingent solely on 'market forces' and haven't been for decades.

Even during COVID, it was 'discovered' that the conservationists may have had a point to their argument when it was realized...

What you are claiming was the point; i.e., that something is 'discovered' and added to the mix in a push or pull for or against something. A new PR campaign is ginned up and, voila, a new 'market force' is at work via the politics it generates.

Politics is not a 'market force' some claim. I say go back and read Post #89. Simply because 'you' or 'I' might not buy the marketing doesn't mean there are millions who will and do. Unfortunately, we are in an era where 'direct democracy' seems to be replacing 'Constitutional Republic' in the minds of the masses and we're seeing the results. It's why I like to point to the SCOTUS quote from 1943...

...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...

That's what lies at the core of AB-28, a marketing campaign either directed at or directed by (or both) the politicians. Never mind the Constitutionality or the practical implications.

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

Politics is not a 'market force' some claim. I say go back and read Post #89. Simply because 'you' or 'I' might not buy the marketing doesn't mean there are millions who will and do. Unfortunately, we are in an era where 'direct democracy' seems to be replacing 'Constitutional Republic' in the minds of the masses and we're seeing the results. It's why I like to point to the SCOTUS quote from 1943.

Politics is marketing, especially in the modern digital era.

[Dan_Eastvale]

That nice photo was during the Winter.
Probably during a mild Santa Ana day like a New Years Rose Bowl day

[chris]

Originally Posted by yacko

Such a poor attempt at making an arguement. It is completely disingenuous.

Anyone that lives anywhere near LA knows that depending on time of year, wind, storms affect the air quality.

There are good days and bad days. And bad months.

I saw the news in spring after all the rains that showed satelite pictures of california showing all the green from the rain- They compared that to a picture the year before taken in August. And who woulda thunk there was a lot of brown in that side by side comparison....

You must watch that same news channel.

Yet LA still has the worst air quality in the nation. From the bird cage liner LA Slimes. They even say it has the worst air quality.

https://www.latimes.com/environment/...ity-once-again

[chris]

Originally Posted by ar15barrels

Exactly.
You can make any weather related argument you want based on picking different pictures from different times of year.
They don't SAY that the pictures are from the same time of year but let people assume that.

Agreed there are days I can see Mt. Baldy from my house and I live in OC. I can see Big Bear on my way out from work on clear days. There are days it's not.

[chris]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

If anyone is interested there was a prior case on excise taxes on firearms. The government in the Mariana Islands levied a $1000 excise tax on handguns.

Here is the opinion which strikes down the excise tax. It starts at the bottom of page 47,

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...0026/4687/109/

I would love to see this state lose on this tax. Newsom will sign it because he does hate gun owners.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by chris

I would love to see this state lose on this tax. Newsom will sign it because he does hate gun owners.

It?s also possible Newsoms legal counsel will point out the Marianna?s case and he could veto the tax. With presidential aspirations, Nationally, this would be a bad political move on his record.

The independent vote nationally is huge.

[bool1tholz]

Originally Posted by taperxz

It?s also possible Newsoms legal counsel will point out the Marianna?s case and he could veto the tax. With presidential aspirations, Nationally, this would be a bad political move on his record.

The independent vote nationally is huge.

This firearm tax is virtue signaling for Gavin, of course he signs it.
If it gets knocked down someday for being unconstitutional Gavin pivots and says it's due to racist MAGA judges and systemic racism stopping him from ending gun violence and adds to his push to amend the constitution deleting 2A.

It goes into gavin's presidential candidate resume.

• Solved homelessness in SF when he was mayor
• Legalized gay marriage
• Increased California cannabis production
• Ending oil extraction in California
• Delivered high speed rail from SF to LA
• Gun control, more gun control
• Etc..

Doesn't matter if any of his achievements are real or positive

[Scratch705]

Originally Posted by johnnyh75

it only effect us the law abiding gun owners it's just criminals just get there stuff on the street from home burglaries it's just going to detour new gun owner ship for does with less means to defend them self or getting in to the gun owner hobby becoming the haves and haves not!! tax and tax for ammo I just suggest getting your COE and getting ammo out state for guns its going to hurt 11% on new purchased I ALLWAYS contacted my legislator of my distric ON GUN RIGHTS BUT it goes on deaf ears

I'll be getting everything i can as gifts from out of state friends and family.

I'll be doing the most I can to prevent CA from taking any more of my money

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by taperxz

It?s also possible Newsoms legal counsel will point out the Marianna?s case and he could veto the tax. With presidential aspirations, Nationally, this would be a bad political move on his record.

The marianna's case is distinguishable becuase it was an across the board $1000 excise tax per pistol that discriminated against the poor, which this tax will be low for inexpensive handguns but higher for premium models, and will therefore have a lesser impact of poor people.

Still, this will be the third tax imposed on the sale of firearms, starting with the federal excise tax (11% paid by the manufacturer and folded into the cost of the firearm), state sales tax (which is nearly 10% in the LA area from what I've heard), and the additional DROS tax that was imposed to pay for "gun violence research." All in, that is getting pretty close to $100 in taxes for California alone for a $300 handgun, not even including the dealer transfer fee.

[9Cal_OC]

Are we still talking about weather?

Or are back on topic

[The Tiger]

Sales tax at 10.25 is bad enough

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Originally Posted by TruOil

...Still, this will be the third tax imposed on the sale of firearms, starting with the federal excise tax (11% paid by the manufacturer and folded into the cost of the firearm), state sales tax (which is nearly 10% in the LA area from what I've heard), and the additional DROS tax that was imposed to pay for "gun violence research." All in, that is getting pretty close to $100 in taxes for California alone for a $300 handgun, not even including the dealer transfer fee.

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.

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by TruOil

Still, this will be the third tax imposed on the sale of firearms, starting with the federal excise tax (11% paid by the manufacturer and folded into the cost of the firearm), state sales tax (which is nearly 10% in the LA area from what I've heard), and the additional DROS tax that was imposed to pay for "gun violence research." All in, that is getting pretty close to $100 in taxes for California alone for a $300 handgun, not even including the dealer transfer fee.

Such as on fossil fuels, progressives always raise existing and implement new taxes incrementally until, like frogs in a pot of boiling water, everyone eventually has their wallets cleaned out by the state. The 11% number will only remain until the next mass shooting.

[flyer898]

This proposed tax is not an excise tax. The federal Pittman/Robertson taxes are imposed once - when the firearm or ammunition is manufactured. I will read the final bill as enacted before opining.
However, my question has to do with how often this tax would apply to a single firearm. If it applies only to a sale of a new firearm that may be different than if it applies to every FFL transfer of the same firearm. That is problematic based on other posters' comments.

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by flyer898

This proposed tax is not an excise tax.

A tax that applies specifically to every firearm, "firearm precursor", and ammunition transaction constitutes an excise tax whether legislators admit it or not. To claim otherwise is an exercise in semantics. It is all problematic!

[Sputnik]

Originally Posted by bool1tholz

This firearm tax is virtue signaling for Gavin, of course he signs it.
If it gets knocked down someday for being unconstitutional Gavin pivots and says it's due to racist MAGA judges and systemic racism stopping him from ending gun violence and adds to his push to amend the constitution deleting 2A.

It goes into gavin's presidential candidate resume.

• Solved homelessness in SF when he was mayor
• Legalized gay marriage
• Increased California cannabis production
  
• Ending oil extraction in California
• Delivered high speed rail from SF to LA
• Gun control, more gun control
• Etc..

Doesn't matter if any of his achievements are real or positive

Don?t forget that he also raised the monthly chocolate ration from 50g to 60g.

[SpudmanWP]

Originally Posted by flyer898

This proposed tax is not an excise tax. The federal Pittman/Robertson taxes are imposed once - when the firearm or ammunition is manufactured. I will read the final bill as enacted before opining.
However, my question has to do with how often this tax would apply to a single firearm. If it applies only to a sale of a new firearm that may be different than if it applies to every FFL transfer of the same firearm. That is problematic based on other posters' comments.

Per the IRS it is an Excise Tax.

https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small...yed/excise-tax

Excise taxes are taxes imposed on certain goods, services, and activities. Taxpayers include importers, manufacturers, retailers, and consumers, and vary depending on the specific tax

I believe your confusion about the tax and how often it applies is due to your thinking that all excise taxes are also a VAT (Value Added Tax).

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/valueaddedtax.asp

Value-added tax (VAT) is a consumption tax on goods and services that is levied at each stage of the supply chain where value is added, from initial production to the point of sale. The amount of VAT the user pays is based on the cost of the product minus any costs of materials in the product that have already been taxed at a previous stage.

Not all VATs are Excise Taxes and vice versa.

Since the tax in question is only applied once at the final "retail" sale, it is not a VAT, and since it is targeted to a group of goods it is an Excise Tax.

Finally, it would apply to all retail sales, both of new and used items as the law does not make any distinction.

36011. Commencing July 1, 2024, an excise tax is hereby imposed upon licensed firearms dealers, firearms manufacturers, and ammunition vendors, at the rate of 11 percent of the gross receipts from the retail sale in this state of any firearm, firearm precursor part, or ammunition.

[cz74]

I guess CA DOJ will issue a bulletin as July 1, 2024 approaches. I'm guessing Transaction Types on DROS of "Dealer Handgun" and "Dealer Long Gun" will impose this tax. What about "Curio & Relic" and "PPT" transaction types?

[SpudmanWP]

If it's one of the above-listed items and it is "sold" through an FFL, then the tax is paid.
If it's just transfered through the FFL then it's not paid.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

Finally, it would apply to all retail sales, both of new and used items as the law does not make any distinction.

I buy a gun and 11% excise tax is assessed. I sell the gun to a dealer. The dealer sells the gun to another person and excise tax again applies? That seems problematic.

With cars, the Sales Tax turns into a Use Tax for re-sells.

[rational_behavior]

Originally Posted by taperxz

No, its a scheme to make people pay more money to own a firearm and purchase ammo. The store just collects the money and sends it into the state

On its face you are not wrong. But people who post here are generally "gun nuts", who will continue buying gun stuff even with this execrable tax. But for the vast majority, that is to say the post-2020 gun owners, as well as the casual types with one or two hand-me-downs, this will have an unmistakable chilling effect on their 2A buying habits. That's why I think this is a way to crush the small time gun stores and pressure the remaining chain stores, or at the very least a lame attempt to return to the pre-pandemic/pre-Bruen status quo ante.

"Big brain" Democrat strategists love this kind of smarmy behavior modification stuff. Same with the carbon schemes. They see the common folk as tax cattle.

[SpudmanWP]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

I buy a gun and 11% excise tax is assessed. I sell the gun to a dealer. The dealer sells the gun to another person and excise tax again applies? That seems problematic.

With cars, the Sales Tax turns into a Use Tax for re-sells.

Given that the Federal FAET gun & ammo tax not only does not mention new vs used but also has a section on "consignment arms", I would say that CA will also tax used arms.

https://www.ttb.gov/firearms/reference-guide

yes, I believe the FAET is also unconstitutional and someone will sue the fed over it once the immediate post-Bruen lawsuits are done.