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

[Canadadry]

Originally Posted by chris

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.

I was recently involved in a meeting with Newsom. I can't give too many details. However, we advised him of the difficulty of what he was asking the industry to do. He didn't care. He told us "we make the rules and you follow". Doesn't that just sound like him.

I made some firearms purchases this year and under the new law it would have cost me an additional $1200 in taxes.

[WithinReason]

sigh...

[homelessdude]

"We make the laws and you follow" Until they don't. Privileged little rich boy comes to mind. He should read up on the French revolution and the cake comment.

[PogoJack]

Neaușescu does it again.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by homelessdude

"We make the laws and you follow" Until they don't. Privileged little rich boy comes to mind. He should read up on the French revolution and the cake comment.

He dined at the French Laundry during his mandated stay home order. But, he "owned" that, so all is good.

[jmpeal]

there is a 11% or should I say 111% I will be buying everything out of state.
Cheaper too, but not the most convenient.

[Usmc0844spare]

Originally Posted by jmpeal

there is a 11% or should I say 111% I will be buying everything out of state.
Cheaper too, but not the most convenient.

Are you talking ammo or guns, or both?

I am luckily still well stocked on ammo from 2018, and will restock a bit more before this takes effect.

For guns, I am out of the market though am toying with the idea of a Glock 26. Can I legally head over to Reno, buy, and then import into the state? I think yes, I'd just have to have it shipped to a local FFL?

Honestly not sure that's actually cheaper. Gas and double the FFL fees and so forth would be way more than the 11% additional cost, no?

[Scratch705]

Originally Posted by Usmc0844spare

Are you talking ammo or guns, or both?

I am luckily still well stocked on ammo from 2018, and will restock a bit more before this takes effect.

For guns, I am out of the market though am toying with the idea of a Glock 26. Can I legally head over to Reno, buy, and then import into the state? I think yes, I'd just have to have it shipped to a local FFL?

Honestly not sure that's actually cheaper. Gas and double the FFL fees and so forth would be way more than the 11% additional cost, no?

The instant you involve a ca ffl you will get charged the tax since the ffl has to write that transfer onto their books. This is why you pay sales tax on ammo sent in if the retailer didnt charge from out of state.

Firearms will be the only thing many cant skip out on paying this new tax on. The 2 ways is to get out of state friends/family to buy then ship you the items. Or have the "special group" aka leos buy for you as they are exempt from this so stores wont charge them the higher cost.

For me im going with way#1. I rather ups/FedEx get the extra money from me doing this than CA

[DolphinFan]

How does a state have ANY regulatory authority of a Federally issued license to do business in an industry that is allegedly PROTECTED by the 2A?
It?s clearly equal to a poll tax.
He and the other elected officials clearly hav an agenda that conflicts with the law.
Since the cornerstone of our Republic is taxation without representation, and since our Representatives are NOT representing their constituents all while exceeding their authority, I see this virtue signaling legislation clearly a Constitutional violation.
Under SCOUTS 1969 decision, when faced with an unconstitutional restriction, on a protected activity, you ma exercise your right ?WITH IMPUNITY?.
I?d like to see every FFL ignore this and force the state to litigate, in federal courts where the Federally Licensed activity is issued it?s license to engage in the federally protected commerce, that also crosses state lines.

[SpudmanWP]

Originally Posted by Scratch705

The instant you involve a ca ffl you will get charged the tax since the ffl has to write that transfer onto their books. This is why you pay sales tax on ammo sent in if the retailer didnt charge from out of state.

The FFL's books only track custody and do not mean a sale. They are used anytime a gun travels through the FFL to include PPTs, repairs, out-of-state transfers, etc.

The law says "retail sale" and the sale happened prior to the gun being put in the books, there is no "sale" to the FFL.

[Scratch705]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

The FFL's books only track custody and do not mean a sale. They are used anytime a gun travels through the FFL to include PPTs, repairs, out-of-state transfers, etc.

The law says "retail sale" and the sale happened prior to the gun being put in the books, there is no "sale" to the FFL.

And yet the CA BOE forces all CA based FFL to collect CA Sales Tax for all firearms and ammo transferred in even if they didn't make the sale. So your logic doesnt match what happens.

[SpudmanWP]

How are they supposed to collect a tax on an amount that they do not know?
There may be something in the Sales Tax laws that allow and enable this, but there is nothing in AB28 to facilitate this.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

The FFL's books only track custody and do not mean a sale. They are used anytime a gun travels through the FFL to include PPTs, repairs, out-of-state transfers, etc.

The law says "retail sale" and the sale happened prior to the gun being put in the books, there is no "sale" to the FFL.

I'm an FFL and thats not how things work. We will be forced to collect the tax from out of state sales. BOE does the sales tax audit and most of us won't lose our business or be charged that missing tax and the fines and interest that go along with failing an audit.

[SpudmanWP]

Originally Posted by taperxz

I'm an FFL and thats not how things work. We will be forced to collect the tax from out of state sales. BOE does the sales tax audit and most of us won't lose our business or be charged that missing tax and the fines and interest that go along with failing an audit.

My point is that there is a section in the CA sales tax law that dictates that you must collect taxes from out-of-state sales. There is no such language for the excise tax.

Again, I'll just point to the law itself where is says that the sale has to occur in the state of California.

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.

I just checked the CA law and CA FFLs are not responsible for Sales Tax from outside sales.
https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/industry/ou...-retailers.htm
TLDR: Out-of-state retailers register with CA and pay it directly.
An FFL in CA would not have a method to verify if a tax was paid on an item passing through his books.

[bigdaddyz1776]

Originally Posted by Canadadry

I was recently involved in a meeting with Newsom. I can't give too many details. However, we advised him of the difficulty of what he was asking the industry to do. He didn't care. He told us "we make the rules and you follow". Doesn't that just sound like him.

I made some firearms purchases this year and under the new law it would have cost me an additional $1200 in taxes.

Newsom is a symptom of what happens when there is no serious serious opposition.

California had Republican governors from 1980 to 1999 roughly. Where the AWB like Roberti Roos, and handgun rosters came into law. And then Arnold signed that law that outlawed the 50 calibur barrett.

California is allowed to get away with banning ICE powered cars while stealing water from other states and electricity as well. California gets a special waiver from the EPA. The ideological amoral neoliberal corporate feudalism originates from this state.

And nothing serious has been done to rein it in. While those sitting in red states comfortably for now, just laugh at California. Not realizing the ideology is already in their lands, planting the seeds. But they will laugh because it doesn't affect them yet.

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by bigdaddyz1776

Newsom is a symptom of what happens when there is no serious serious opposition.

California had Republican governors from 1980 to 1999 roughly. Where the AWB like Roberti Roos, and handgun rosters came into law. And then Arnold signed that law that outlawed the 50 calibur barrett.

California is allowed to get away with banning ICE powered cars while stealing water from other states and electricity as well. California gets a special waiver from the EPA. The ideological amoral neoliberal corporate feudalism originates from this state.

And nothing serious has been done to rein it in. While those sitting in red states comfortably for now, just laugh at California. Not realizing the ideology is already in their lands, planting the seeds. But they will laugh because it doesn't affect them yet.

The State of California has 39 million people, a $3.6 trillion GDP, 54 members of Congress, dozens of Silicon Valley technology giants, multiple Hollywood media empires, and a whole squad of like-minded ally states like Washington, Oregon, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Maryland.

How are Republican states supposed to "rein in" California? Launch an invasion?

[FourT6and2]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

I just checked the CA law and CA FFLs are not responsible for Sales Tax from outside sales.
https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/industry/ou...-retailers.htm
TLDR: Out-of-state retailers register with CA and pay it directly.
An FFL in CA would not have a method to verify if a tax was paid on an item passing through his books.

Have you never purchased a gun before? When you buy a gun out of state, it is shipped to an FFL in California. When you pick up your gun, you are required to pay sales tax if you haven't paid it to the original out-of-state retailer. How does the CA FFL know? You provide a receipt. If that originating state in which you purchased has no state tax or the tax is lower than CA's, you pay the difference.

[SpudmanWP]

No, I have never purchased an out-of-state item that I had to pick up at an FFL.
Can you show me the law that states the FFL must check the receipt and charge the tax if no CA tax was assessed?

Regardless, how does that change the fact that AB28 directly states that the Excise Tax is only for "gross receipts from the retail sale in this state"?

[bigdaddyz1776]

Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven

The State of California has 39 million people, a $3.6 trillion GDP, 54 members of Congress, dozens of Silicon Valley technology giants, multiple Hollywood media empires, and a whole squad of like-minded ally states like Washington, Oregon, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Maryland.

How are Republican states supposed to "rein in" California? Launch an invasion?

Use the federal government to rein them in like we see Biden doing to Texas or Obama did to Arizona over the border and electric grid.

Trump managed to shut down the EPA waiver but its like a revolving door where Biden came back in and reinstated it. Next time Newsom or any other California governor cries about funding for wildfires before they waste it on the open borders cause, just tell them no unless they agree to federal micromanaged oversight. Whenever California tries to steal water or electricity from other states, just tell them no. And pass laws to reduce their subversion.

When California passes laws to force manufacturers to behave in a certain way, Republican states can do the opposite like they did recently with the payment processors over that firearms code.

California uses a double pronged approach where while the state does grandstanding like "travel bans" which are basically withholding use of state funds to go to another state, the donor class and elites in California do their part by funding causes in other states like in the case of that abortion proposition in Kansas where all the money for "No" came out of state from the usual suspects.

I suspect the elites within Republican or purple states don't have the same relationship with their state government or use them in the way that California does.

But there is historical precedent for using federal power to shut down unruly states in many ways. Whether is was for the better or the worse. The question is the will.

Now people can bring up Democrats doing this or that or whatever but they doing it and seem very comfortable with it.

[FourT6and2]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

No, I have never purchased an out-of-state item that I had to pick up at an FFL.
Can you show me the law that states the FFL must check the receipt and charge the tax if no CA tax was assessed?

Regardless, how does that change the fact that AB28 directly states that the Excise Tax is only for "gross receipts from the retail sale in this state"?

No, I can't show you the law. I'm not invested enough in this conversation to go through the hassle to do that.

But I'm sure a Google search will show you. Regardless, I'm telling you as a resident of CA who has purchased numerous firearms from shops in other states over the last decade or more, CA collects state sales tax on any firearm purchase you make whether it's in-state or out-of-state. The FFL will not release the firearm to you without paying the sales tax because THEY are ultimately responsible for remitting it to the state franchise tax board and they definitely don't want to get audited or held responsible for that tax. Is that written in law somewhere and/or communicated by the state FTB? Yes.

Sales tax is a thing. You pay it when you buy something. And you're not gonna find some loophole to get out of it...

[SpudmanWP]

I look to be mistaken as CA does mandate FFLs to "check the receipt" for any non-registered out-of-state retailers.

https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/industry/gun-dealers.htm
Delivering and Registering Firearms or Ammunition for Out-of-State Retailers
The California Penal Code requires that the sale of a firearm or ammunition from an out-of-state retailer be made through a CFD. In a typical transaction, the California purchaser will contact you to make arrangements for the transfer of the firearm or ammunition from the out-of-state retailer. The out-of-state retailer will then ship the firearm or ammunition to you to log it into your Federal Acquisition/Disposition books, complete the CA DOJ Firearms Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) and deliver the firearm to the California purchaser.

When a California Federal Firearms Licensed dealer (FFL) completes the registration and transfer paperwork and delivers a firearm or ammunition to a California purchaser on behalf of either an out-of-state private party or an out-of-state retailer who is not registered with the CDTFA, the California FFL dealer is presumed to be the retailer of the firearm or ammunition and generally owes sales tax on the total amount of the sales price including any service charge or handling fees but excluding the DROS fee. This is by operation of law, only the California FFL dealer possessing the firearm or ammunition has authority to transfer title to the purchaser. As a California firearms dealer, you should obtain a copy of the sales contract or invoice from the out of state seller or the purchaser in order to determine the proper amount of tax due on the sale.

So it looks like of the out-of-state retailer is not registered with CA to collect the use tax in the original sale, the FFL has to do it. This even includes PPT sales.

Still no language in AB28 to add this to the process.

[Dvrjon]

The Tax Code

And the FTB no longer regulates this, nor does the Board of Equalization. It is the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration.

[Scratch705]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

I look to be mistaken as CA does mandate FFLs to "check the receipt" for any non-registered out-of-state retailers.



So it looks like of the out-of-state retailer is not registered with CA to collect the use tax in the original sale, the FFL has to do it. This even includes PPT sales.

Still no language in AB28 to add this to the process.

Cause ab28 is adding it to the burden of the retailer.

So it is up to each FFL to make sure they collect it from their customers or pay out that 11% cost themselves

[SpudmanWP]

AB28 says "retail sale in this state" and while the Tax Code for Sales/Use tax has provisions to have the FFL collect Sales Tax when the retailer does not, AB28 does not have that provision. You can't just assume because it contains the word "tax" that it falls within the same restrictions that sales/use tax does.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

AB28 says "retail sale in this state" and while the Tax Code for Sales/Use tax has provisions to have the FFL collect Sales Tax when the retailer does not, AB28 does not have that provision. You can't just assume because it contains the word "tax" that it falls within the same restrictions that sales/use tax does.

Pretty clear you have never dealt with BOE

You can pretend to know all you want. At the end of the day when California Department of Tax and Fee Administration says to collect it, it gets collected

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by taperxz

Pretty clear you have never dealt with BOE

You can pretend to know all you want. At the end of the day when California Department of Tax and Fee Administration says to collect it, it gets collected

Just like they did on Amazon purchases. Notice the line on the state tax return form that says to pay the state sales tax on out-of-state purchases where you didn't pay the state tax?

[SpudmanWP]

The reason that there is language in the Sales Tax & FFL code to instruct on how to collect Use Tax from out-of-state sales is due to the fact that you need a law in order to collect a tax.

They very well may amend AB28 before or after it passes in order to apply the tax to out-of-state sales, but as of now, it would be illegal to apply that excise tax to those sales.

There is no assuming in the law, it either says it or it does not.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

AB28 says "retail sale in this state" and while the Tax Code for Sales/Use tax has provisions to have the FFL collect Sales Tax when the retailer does not, AB28 does not have that provision. You can't just assume because it contains the word "tax" that it falls within the same restrictions that sales/use tax does.

The 'assumptions' being made are that the State will do what it has done with other things; i.e., view it as a tax applicable to 'everything.' As a result, what both you and those you are arguing with are going to have to do is take it to court to resolve and that leads to the 'conclusion' you don't seem to wish to accept. It is likely that the State will implement it, gather the taxes, and let the legal chips fall where they may in the State courts and through the 9th Circuit; meaning we don't have much chance of your argument prevailing for awhile.

How 'enforceable' their argument would be is going to be contingent on the cooperation FFL's provide. Given that their business and lives will be impacted directly by the State if they don't play it the State's way, I suspect they will be unlikely to side with your argument on a pragmatic level.

In a sense, what you are arguing is the same thing which was argued about Internet sales; i.e., where did the transaction take place so an appropriate sales tax, if any, can be imposed and distributed. It's long been a tenet of California Law that out-of-state purchases are still hit with sales tax, if not via the retailer, then via your personal responsibility on the yearly tax form...



What feeds the perception that out-of-state vendors will collect it or quit doing business with Californians? Internet sales taxes, existing excise tax(es), etc. Even more to the point, look at Ch. 7, Section 8...

If any section, subsection, sentence, or clause of this act is for any reason declared unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the constitutionality, validity, or enforceability of the remaining portions of this act or any part thereof. The Legislature hereby declares that it would have adopted this act notwithstanding the unconstitutionality, invalidity, or unenforceability of any one or more of its sections, subsections, sentences, or clauses.

In other words, the Legislature already expects pushback against certain sections and has expressed, in the bill, that they consider whatever results contrary to their agenda to be... irrelevant. It's the thought expressed by Reggie Jones-Sawyer and why we poke fun at him for it. Yet, he's still in office and still doing things... whether they're constitutional or not.

[SpudmanWP]

You are making my point.

That form explicitly states "Sales/Use tax" as each is clearly defined in the applicable laws.

Note how "Sales" and "Use" are capitalized. That is because they have legal definitions and are not generalized terms.

The "current" AB28 does not make any provision for collecting the Excise (again, capitalized) tax from out-of-state sales and until the law is amended, it cannot legally be collected.

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

You are making my point.

That form explicitly states "Sales/Use tax" as each is clearly defined in the applicable laws.

Note how "Sales" and "Use" are capitalized. That is because they have legal definitions and are not generalized terms.

The "current" AB28 does not make any provision for collecting the Excise (again, capitalized) tax from out-of-state sales and until the law is amended, it cannot legally be collected.

Retailers will collect the excise tax anyway because the fear of having the California DOJ come around with audits and issue huge fines overrides the desire to save customers 11%. The State of California has literally embarked upon a massive lawsuit to hold fossil fuel companies liable for allegedly contributing to climate change; what makes you think your restrictive interpretation of the tax code would prevail?

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/0...anies-00116398

[SpudmanWP]

There will undoubtedly be guidance on this long before it takes effect.

Besides, FFLs pay VERY close attention to the applicable laws so they are not likely to "flinch" and try to collect the tax on assumptions.

[jcwatchdog]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

No, I have never purchased an out-of-state item that I had to pick up at an FFL.
Can you show me the law that states the FFL must check the receipt and charge the tax if no CA tax was assessed?

Regardless, how does that change the fact that AB28 directly states that the Excise Tax is only for "gross receipts from the retail sale in this state"?

Honestly I think you?re confused. If the FFL doesn?t collect the proper tax, they are on the hook for paying it. The doj could care less, the atf too. The IRS are the ones that would have an issue. If the FFL?s taxes are audited, and they have not collected any taxes for the out of state transfers, they are responsible for paying them. So no, they don?t HAVE to check the receipts, they don?t have to collect the taxes, but if they don?t, they will have to pay for it.

When you buy something out of state that doesn?t charge tax, technically you?re supposed to pay the taxes when the time comes at the end of the year. But since a gun is not shipped to you, it?s shipped to the FFL, they become responsible for making sure the taxes are paid.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

You are making my point.

That form explicitly states "Sales/Use tax" as each is clearly defined in the applicable laws.

Note how "Sales" and "Use" are capitalized. That is because they have legal definitions and are not generalized terms.

The "current" AB28 does not make any provision for collecting the Excise (again, capitalized) tax from out-of-state sales and until the law is amended, it cannot legally be collected.

You keep missing the point. AB28 doesn't need to make any specific provisions in that the provisions already exist, which is why the bill stipulates, up front... "The tax would be collected by the state pursuant to the Fee Collection Procedures Law." That Law and its provisions can be found... Here.

In addition...

36031. (a) The department shall administer and collect the taxes imposed by this part pursuant to the Fee Collection Procedures Law (Part 30 (commencing with Section 55001)). For purposes of this part, the references in the Fee Collection Procedures Law to "fee" shall include the taxes imposed by this part, and references to "feepayer" shall mean any person liable for the payment of the taxes imposed under this part and collected pursuant to that law.
(b) The department may prescribe, adopt, and enforce rules and regulations, including emergency regulations as necessary, relating to the administration and enforcement of this part, including, but not limited to, collections, reporting, refunds, and appeals.

What we have been pointing out to you is that the State's Government has been doing this for a LONG time, on many levels, and simply because you don't see what you want to see doesn't mean they are 'illegally proceeding' and that people will 'risk it all' to follow your lead. Such has to be established in court. In the mean time, the State will do what it feels is 'necessary' to enforce 'existing Law' as it will be 'presumed Constitutional.' Since the tax is to be collected from those 'industry members' and not the 'consumer' directly, and the bill not only points out the procedures to be employed, but authorizes creation of new 'procedures,' there is no 'need' to provide specific language on how to 'collect the tax' in the bill...

(j) The excise tax on firearm and ammunition retailers proposed in this act is analogous to longstanding federal law, which has, since 1919, placed a 10-percent to 11-percent excise tax on the sale of firearms and ammunition by manufacturers, producers, and importers. Revenues from this excise tax have been used, since passage of the Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act in 1937, to fund wildlife conservation efforts that remediate the effects that firearms and ammunition have on wildlife populations through game hunting, particularly through grants to state wildlife agencies, and for conservation-related research, technical assistance, hunter safety, and ?hunter development.?
(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.

The assumption/presumption is that 'industry members' will not simply 'eat' the tax and will, instead, pass it along, just as they do the Pittman-Robertson tax, where it will be 'factored into' the price paid for the product(s).

What you keep doing is focusing on the trees to the point where you refuse to see the forest they make up and how those individual trees fit into and are supported by the forest's ecosystem.

What critics of the excise tax have to demonstrate is that the tax itself is an 'intrusive species' to that ecosystem and, thus, 'threatens' it, necessitating its removal before such harm occurs.

[SpudmanWP]

If the Excise tax were not for "just" CA sales, then it would not have explicitly said "gross receipts from the retail sale in this state of any firearm, firearm precursor part, or ammunition".

The "Fee Collection Procedures Law" only covers "how" to collect & pay fees & taxes, it does not say what is to be taxed. That is covered under various laws that define the tax/fee in question.

The part about "The department may prescribe, adopt,..." only covers the administration of the law and may not change it. You can't simply go from CA sales to all sales in the US to CA residents without passing a law.

Much of this argument is moot as there will be a TRO/PI in place long before it becomes a problem. Not only does it violate Bruen, but also several unanimous SCOTUS decisions. This will be the first followed by Pittman-Robertson and others.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

...The "Fee Collection Procedures Law" only covers "how" to collect & pay fees & taxes, it does not say what is to be taxed. That is covered under various laws that define the tax/fee in question.

The part about "The department may prescribe, adopt,..." only covers the administration of the law and may not change it. You can't simply go from CA sales to all sales in the US to CA residents without passing a law.

Much of this argument is moot as there will be a TRO/PI in place long before it becomes a problem. Not only does it violate Bruen, but also several unanimous SCOTUS decisions. This will be the first followed by Pittman-Robertson and others.

We know what is to be taxed... "the gross receipts from the retail sale in this state of a firearm, firearm precursor part, and ammunition, as specified..." and (e) "Gross receipts" shall have the same meaning as that term is defined in Section 6012. According to Section 6012 of California's Sales And Use Tax Law...

6012. "Gross receipts." (a) "Gross receipts" mean the total amount of the sale or lease or rental price, as the case may be, of the retail sales of retailers, valued in money, whether received in money or otherwise, without any deduction on account of any of the following...

Remember, the vast majority impose a 'fee' to cover the cost of the 'paperwork' in transferring the firearm; something which is generally added as part of the 'gross receipt.' And, as you noted in Post #141...

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

I look to be mistaken as CA does mandate FFLs to "check the receipt" for any non-registered out-of-state retailers.

So it looks like of the out-of-state retailer is not registered with CA to collect the use tax in the original sale, the FFL has to do it. This even includes PPT sales.

Still no language in AB28 to add this to the process.

Again, you are the only one, thus far, who seems to feel the need for a 'change' in the Law and what I, along with others, is/are observing is that such a 'change' is not required as it is already spelled out among the various regulations cited in AB28. Simply because you don't see or agree with it doesn't mean it's not there. (Remember, it's not an 'use' tax. It's an excise tax on the sale of specific products.)

On the last, we agree that it is going to undergo wranglings in the judiciary. Whether we get a preliminary injunction or a restraining order is open to debate (along with how long it will be effective), as is the likelihood that we will succeed and at what point (not to mention to what degree) that success will (or won't) come. Until then, however, it's something we are going to have to find a way to live with, work around, or other.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

They're trying to 'sell' it so that Newsom will sign. The problem is that the way they're doing it reveals they don't consider it a Constitutional right or feel that it shouldn't be. As we often observe, what if you were to apply the same 'logic' to other rights?

Opinion: Here's how a California tax on firearms would prevent gun violence

...Gov. Gavin Newsom has an opportunity to make such an investment at a historic scale. He can do so by signing a bill to enact the nation's first state excise tax on retail sales of guns and ammunition. Passed by the Legislature this month after a series of failed attempts, the 11% tax would raise an estimated $159 million a year to prevent gun violence...

Sustaining these public safety initiatives in cities across the state takes predictable, continuing funding. Recognizing this, Los Angeles Police Chief Michel Moore has backed this legislation, citing a sharp decline in firearm-related homicides since violence intervention programs were implemented.

A tax on the manufacturers and sellers of guns and ammunition is a logical source of funding for violence prevention. California has long levied excise taxes on products that do harm, among them alcohol, tobacco and, most recently, marijuana. And there is no doubt that guns cause harm: In California, someone is killed with a gun every three hours...

Like most elected officials, Newsom is appropriately reluctant to raise taxes. But the governor has courageously led on gun safety regulation, even proposing an amendment that would enshrine basic gun safety principles in the U.S. Constitution. Signing this bill would be in keeping with that leadership...

Note that the author of the piece is...

Paul Carrillo is the vice president of the Giffords Center for Violence Intervention and a co-founder of Southern California Crossroads, a nonprofit violence prevention and intervention organization.

Suppose we were to pass legislation against lobbying given the harm and chaos it and the legislation proposed regularly causes. You know, tax and restrict things like free speech, freedom to gather, freedom of the press, etc. After all, California has long levied excise taxes on products that do harm and there is no doubt that such activities cause harm. Same logic, same results would, likely, engender a different perspective.

[Supersapper]

I saw it above but didn't really see an answer. Would a PPT count as a retail sale under this law?

I would think not because there's no way to determine a value, but I'd be curious if any of the FFLs reading this thread have an idea of how that would work out.

[SpudmanWP]

The law says "retail sale" so no, it would not count.

[ar15barrels]

Originally Posted by Supersapper

Would a PPT count as a retail sale under this law?

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.

[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!!