11% excise tax

[ProfChaos]

I still want to know how these stores are going "pick up on July 1st is subject to the tax" when the item was PAID for and would have been picked up before the deadline if it was not for the 10 day waiting period.

[Supersapper]

I still want to know how these stores are going "pick up on July 1st is subject to the tax" when the item was PAID for and would have been picked up before the deadline if it was not for the 10 day waiting period.

Because the sale is not considered "consummated" until pick up. A sale, IIRC, is considered completed when the "contract" between both parties is completed, ie item is paid for in full AND goods/services are delivered/rendered. Since the waiting period is part and parcel of the "contract", then the goods (the firearm in this case) is not considered delivered until legally permitted to be picked up. Since there is no "grandfathering in", it becomes a hard date.

If, during the period of the "contract" between 2 parties the law changes, then the "contract" may have to be modified to meet the new legal standard since the contract was not completed. IIRC, this is called "operation of law". In the case of a firearm, if you're not paying the 11%, then the DROS would be terminated.

But IANAL.

[Tere_Hanges]

Just got an email from Target Sports USA notifying me about the 11% tax but it didn't specifically say they would be collecting the tax. I guess that can be inferred. But is there even a legal requirement for them to pay the tax to CA because the law specifies who has to pay the tax and it doesn't sound like out-of-state sellers are covered.

[MountainLion]

MountainLion,
I won't specifically speak for him, but I think he's making a long distance connection to a poll tax, which was specifically ruled unconstitutional because it did in fact work against the poor. A lot of people are tying this to that and from some of the legal beagles I've talked to, there is a possibility it could be fought on those grounds.

The poll tax argument has nothing to do with below-median-income people.

Also, if the poll tax argument were correct, one would have expected the federal 11% excise tax to have fallen long ago. Yet, it has survived nearly a century of being in effect.

[CALI-gula]

Because the sale is not considered "consummated" until pick up. A sale, IIRC, is considered completed when the "contract" between both parties is completed, ie item is paid for in full AND goods/services are delivered/rendered. Since the waiting period is part and parcel of the "contract", then the goods (the firearm in this case) is not considered delivered until legally permitted to be picked up. Since there is no "grandfathering in", it becomes a hard date.

If, during the period of the "contract" between 2 parties the law changes, then the "contract" may have to be modified to meet the new legal standard since the contract was not completed. IIRC, this is called "operation of law". In the case of a firearm, if you're not paying the 11%, then the DROS would be terminated.

But IANAL.

However, that's not how California DOJ or dealers have treated the aspects of other laws respective of the tail-end waiting period of a DROS in the past. I'm not buying the 'hard date' point.

Thousands, if not hundreds-of-thousands, of examples where a ban/prohibited type of firearm on an active DROS in the waiting period was allowed to be picked up AFTER the law went into force, so long as the law went into force during the allowable 30-days of the DROS. The DOJ expressed it as the 'sale' had already been completed, the reason that applied.

As you weren't prevented from picking up the item even though it was now a 'banned' firearm or feature because they considered the sale complete when DROS started, I don't see how these Dealers can now make the leap to charge the 11% tax after the DROS was initiated and the item paid for in full prior to this law-change taking affect as well.

As a like-and-kind comparison where state fees apply, the same had been done in the past when DROS fees went up. You were charged the existing and lower DROS fee at time of DROS; they didn't then charge you the difference for the higher DROS cost when it changed mid-DROS and you came back in to pick up the firearm. The 'sale' was considered complete when you paid at the beginning of the DROS; so it should be no different here.

Whether SB-23, AB50, SSE, or Bullet Button guns DROSed, or even for ammo and magazines that shipped during the various 'Freedom Weeks' we've had over the past several years, they were not subject to retraction once purchased and/or shipped, even if they had not reached CA yet.

Instead, it sounds more like some dealers are overreaching and applying their usual cringing FUD as they see fit, no different than when many of those same dealers that spouted "YOU'LL GO TO JAIL" for buying OLLs/OLRs/BBs /SSE's and high-cap mags during 'Freedom Week' as other dealers were selling them hand over fist, and obstinately refused to do the same, but then some months later sheepishly joined the party and acted all along like they never had a problem with it.

Seem quite intentional contradictory out of convenience and to cover costs that not even CA would look to collect on for those transitional DROS examples to which it would otherwise be exempt due to the above comparisons.

So, if an injunction is applied against the 11% scam, and the law deemed null-and-void by a sane and constitutional judge, will these dealers refund your 11% ?


.

[CALI-gula]

The poll tax argument has nothing to do with below-median-income people.

Also, if the poll tax argument were correct, one would have expected the federal 11% excise tax to have fallen long ago. Yet, it has survived nearly a century of being in effect.

But the consumer was not paying this federal 11% excise tax at time of purchase as an identified separate itemized part of their invoice/pricing as will be the case here.

In the regard, the tax itself is not serving those who are paying it. Unlike a 'sin tax' it is being applied to a civil-right that is then not charged to others that enjoy those rights but are not purchasing a firearm. It's being applied unevenly, and the tax itself is being used surreptitiously like a sales-tax to build hostile programs and activism against the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership.

The Federal excise tax was on an operational aspect of business/product behind the scenes. If it were passed on to consumers merely by causing prices to increase, the end-consumer was not specifically and outright paying a single-purchase tax on a specific item, as a line-item in their bill like a sales-tax.

So as this is functionally being applied more like a sales tax than an excise tax by way of that line-item, it won't stand muster in court. If CA mandated dealers couldn't charge it as a line-itemized part of the billing, and dealers merely jacked up prices without pointing to a line-item on your invoice/receipt as to paying a specific tax like a 'sales' tax (which is really what this is, whether it's playing fast and loose by calling it an excise tax or not) then CA would have gotten away with it.

They won't, and you can expect an injunction and subsequently this 'sales' tax masquerading as an excise tax to be sent right to the crapper.

.

[Supersapper]

The poll tax argument has nothing to do with below-median-income people.

Also, if the poll tax argument were correct, one would have expected the federal 11% excise tax to have fallen long ago. Yet, it has survived nearly a century of being in effect.

Poll taxes were removed long ago. I'm likening it to a poll tax in form regarding the unconstitutionality and the fact that the reason for that strike down is because of the effect on poorer people being unable to pay that tax.

[Supersapper]

However, that's not how California DOJ or dealers have treated the aspects of other laws respective of the tail-end waiting period of a DROS in the past. I'm not buying the 'hard date' point.

Thousands, if not hundreds-of-thousands, of examples where a ban/prohibited type of firearm on an active DROS in the waiting period was allowed to be picked up AFTER the law went into force, so long as the law went into force during the allowable 30-days of the DROS. The DOJ expressed it as the 'sale' had already been completed, the reason that applied.

As you weren't prevented from picking up the item even though it was now a 'banned' firearm or feature because they considered the sale complete when DROS started, I don't see how these Dealers can now make the leap to charge the 11% tax after the DROS was initiated prior to this law-change taking affect as well.

Whether SB-23, AB50, SSE, or Bullet Button guns DROSed, or even for ammo and magazines that shipped during the various 'Freedom Weeks' we've had over the past several years, they were not subject to retraction once purchased and/or shipped, even if they had not reached CA yet.

Instead, it sounds more like some dealers are overreaching and applying their usual cringing FUD as they see fit, no different than when many of those same dealers that spouted "YOU'LL GO TO JAIL" for buying OLLs/OLRs/BBs /SSE's and high-cap mags during 'Freedom Week' as other dealers were selling them hand over fist, and obstinately refused to do the same, but then some months later sheepishly joined the party and acted all along like they never had a problem with it.

Seem quite intentional contradictory out of convenience and to cover costs that not even CA would look to collect on for those transitional DROS examples to which it would otherwise be exempt due to the above comparisons.

So, if an injunction is applied against the 11% scam, and the law deemed null-and-void by a sane and constitutional judge, will these dealers refund your 11% ?


.

You need to separate out each law. California doesn't care about precedents. This much should be obvious. But on a financial note, many of the other laws were either immediately or shortly thereafter stayed, right? Look at freedom week for the mag ban. The judge basically gave people until the last day at 1700 to get the order in and as long as there was something that shipped them by that time, then it was moot and still stood, but if the order had not shipped by that point, then the companies for the most part stopped shipment because of the ambiguity in the law and simply used the date as the marker. The judge also ruled that those who obtained them during freedom week could not be prosecuted. There was a lot going into it but in many ways it was spelled out. Many of the companies were out of state and gave the finger to CA when they were asked for records showing who bought what, so there really was nothing the state could do. Once it was in the air or in the truck, there was no pulling it back, but that was ONLY because there was no way to pull it back. You and I know for a fact that if they could have, the state would have stopped your 30 rounders at your doorstep. They just couldn't do it. But at 1659 on that fateful day, if you stepped into the LGS looking for that Glock mag but got to the checkout counter at 1701, they could not sell it to you legally.

Moreover, things like featured weapons, BBs, RAWs, etc mostly involved very ubiquitous and variable AR series rifle that caused great consternation because the receiver did not determine whether or not the rifle was a RAW, BBRAW, or legit.

The problem with this is that there is nothing ambiguous and no overlap in physics. This is just a date demarcation for a dollar amount. One could see this like registering your car late. If you mail the check on the date of registration (or even before) and it arrives late, the DMV won't care. You're still late and have to pay the 10% penalty.

You may be correct in a lot of the contradictions and variability...you can't blame a company for looking out for itself legally, especially with such badly written and arguably unconstitutional laws. We need to have some sympathy for the LGS's. The state is looking for any way to strip a license and not collecting the appropriate taxes is a really fast way to get into hot water.

BTW...since it's considered a "tax" and not profit, then my guess is that the LGS collecting it would absolutely have to refund it if the state is ordered to refund it. Someone else here said keep records of everything you pay. Good idea that way you can prove what they owe you back.

[Supersapper]

But the consumer was not paying this federal 11% excise tax at time of purchase as an identified separate itemized part of their invoice/pricing as will be the case here.

In the regard, the tax itself is not serving those who are paying it. Unlike a 'sin tax' it is being applied to a civil-right that is then not charged to others that enjoy those rights but are not purchasing a firearm. It's being applied unevenly, and the tax itself is being used surreptitiously like a sales-tax to build hostile programs and activism against the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership.

The Federal excise tax was on an operational aspect of business/product behind the scenes. If it were passed on to consumers merely by causing prices to increase, the end-consumer was not specifically and outright paying a single-purchase tax on a specific item, as a line-item in their bill like a sales-tax.

So as this is functionally being applied more like a sales tax than an excise tax by way of that line-item, it won't stand muster in court. If CA mandated dealers couldn't charge it as a line-itemized part of the billing, and dealers merely jacked up prices without pointing to a line-item on your invoice/receipt as to paying a specific tax like a 'sales' tax (which is really what this is, whether it's playing fast and loose by calling it an excise tax or not) then CA would have gotten away with it.

They won't, and you can expect an injunction and subsequently this 'sales' tax masquerading as an excise tax to be sent right to the crapper.

.

Shhhhhhhh!!!! Don't give them any ideas :O

I didn't see your edit, above. I do agree that there are issues with consistency, but as I mentioned below...the state could give a crap about either consistency or precedent.

[Enthused]

Reminder to go out and buy ammo this month. Regardless of how much you have, you need more.

[MountainLion]

So as this is functionally being applied more like a sales tax than an excise tax by way of that line-item, it won't stand muster in court.

So your argument is: A tax of 11% on guns and ammo is constitutional if it is not printed on the receipt, and unconstitutional if it is a separate line item on the receipt?

To quote Mr. Spock: Fascinating.

[CALI-gula]

So your argument is: A tax of 11% on guns and ammo is constitutional if it is not printed on the receipt, and unconstitutional if it is a separate line item on the receipt?

To quote Mr. Spock: Fascinating.

Absolutely not. That was seemingly YOUR argument! It's not ironic at all that you would try to turn my comments around in that manner.

My point was showing you that your argument in defense of the Federal excise tax's durability by your comparison of it to California mimicking the same as making the latter legitimate, was only successful in how Federal government 'got away with it' by sneakily not presenting it as a line item tax to consumers in the cost or receipt of a firearm purchase. By having kept it hidden from such consumers, it didn't raise their attention or hackles as an affront to their civil rights, liberties, and awareness of its unconstitutionality. I'm certain even 90% of pedestrian gun owners have no knowledge that the 11% Federal Excise tax exists at all.

Fascinating indeed.

.

[Silence Dogood]

Kostas Moros tweeted yesterday about waiting in line to buy a gun before the new tax starts. He followed it up with another speculating about how long we will have to deal with this before it gets stricken by a court (if that ever happens):

Btw, do not count on any immediate injunctions. It will be a minute before lawsuits are filed because the tax has to be paid for standing. Additionally, while I still need to research the exceptions, I believe that this tax can only be challenged in state court, despite federal constitutional claims. If I'm right about that, it's going to be a tough road. The California state court system is as hostile as it gets to anything gun-related. Could be L-L-L and then hope SCOTUS grants cert.

https://x.com/MorosKostas/status/1799505670800347628

For anyone allergic to X, he goes on to say the "Tax Injunction Act" is the reason it would stay in state court and posts a copy of a document explaining why that appears to have been originally published by the Counsel of State Taxation. I haven't figured out how to copy images from X to CG so here's the link to that post with the image:

https://x.com/MorosKostas/status/1799512459251970370

[Rickybillegas]

Can you tell me where exactly in the constitution it says that below-median income people need to be protected from high prices? I must have missed it last time I read the constitution.

Seriously: Among gun people, the word "unconstitutional" has changed its meaning, to "I don't like it". Which is a big problem, because there are lots of things that really ARE unconstitutional, but we can no longer find out which they are, because everyone is misusing the word. Which is a long way of saying: Cried wolf one too many times.

Where does it say a gun/ammo tax that burdens the poor is unconstitutional?

It says so in the plain text of the second amendment: "................the right of the people to keep bear arms shall not be infringed"
Moving to Miriam/Websters dictionary, what does infringed mean? One of the definitions is to 'frustrate'.
So, if we word this to that definition, we could say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be frustrated".

A tax (or law) that is burdensome, onerous and discriminatory in the sense that a certain significant portion of the population is legitimately frustrated in the exercise of a constitutional right,
can be said to infringe, or frustrate that right is probably unconstitutional in my opinion.

If you are cautioning us to be careful and be reminded that a law is not unconstitutional until ruled so by the courts. You are right. That's a legal fact, but not an opinion.
My thesis is not a fact, but an opinion (as I said so in my post).

As to the problem of "anything we don't like is unconstitutional", well, we should be careful about this to be sure. But if our opinion is reasoned, then I think we can certainly opine.
You may not like my reason, but it is a reason.

[DCoakley]

I believe someone else already posted this but just in case you have not heard Target Sports USA will be implementing the 11% tax on Ammo. I hate this state!