Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Jaymes et al vs Maduros, CRPA suit against 11% Excise Tax, July 2 2024

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Librarian
    Admin and Poltergeist
    CGN Contributor - Lifetime
    • Oct 2005
    • 44624

    Jaymes et al vs Maduros, CRPA suit against 11% Excise Tax, July 2 2024



    DANIELLE JAYMES, JOSHUAH GERKEN,
    SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION,
    FIREARMS POLICY COALITION,
    CALIFORNIA RIFLE & PISTOL
    ASSOCIATION, and NATIONAL RIFLE
    ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiffs,
    v.
    NICOLAS MADUROS, in his official capacity
    as Director of the California Department of Tax
    and Fee Administration,
    Defendant.
    Last edited by Librarian; 07-02-2024, 9:26 PM.
    ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

    Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
  • #2
    Preston-CLB
    Veteran Member
    • Apr 2018
    • 3184

    And...Here we go!

    Let's help CRPA fight this BS! Please donate!
    -P
    ? "If you want nice fresh oats, you have to pay a fair price. If you are satisfied with oats that have already been through the horse, well, that comes a little cheaper."

    Comment

    • #3
      The Gleam
      I need a LIFE!!
      • Feb 2011
      • 10940

      I think they could have also cited that California lacks a legitimate energency or unique special circumstance as a state where collecting such a tax is justified, or even the outlet to which they intend to apply the benefits of the collected tax is of a necessary and meaningful measure that directly benefits those who paid the tax.

      That was the same consideration applied when California was trying to apply a special tax on truck drivers entering/leaving CA years ago. CA couldn't show a special and unique circumstance or extraordinary emergency that justified the tax, so the courts tossed it.

      And an injunction against collecting the tax should be immediately put in force to avoid an unjust 'taking' while this is being hashed out in court, no different than the injunction of taking/confiscation of legally owned high-capacity magazines was blocked, as that junk legislation to ban mere possession makes its way through the courts.

      ---

      Last edited by The Gleam; 07-02-2024, 10:46 PM.
      -----------------------------------------------
      Originally posted by Librarian
      What compelling interest has any level of government in knowing what guns are owned by civilians? (Those owned by government should be inventoried and tracked, for exactly the same reasons computers and desks and chairs are tracked: responsible care of public property.)

      If some level of government had that information, what would they do with it? How would having that info benefit public safety? How would it benefit law enforcement?

      Comment

      • #4
        splithoof
        Veteran Member
        • May 2015
        • 4779

        Comment

        • #5
          WithinReason
          Senior Member
          • Jan 2013
          • 746

          Originally posted by Preston-CLB
          And...Here we go!

          Let's help CRPA fight this BS! Please donate!
          -P
          Agreed. I joined CRPA a few years ago, and I will become a senior life member next year. We should support the organizations supporting our constitutional rights.
          sigpic

          Comment

          • #6
            abinsinia
            Veteran Member
            • Feb 2015
            • 4000

            Comment

            • #7
              cz74
              Senior Member
              • May 2020
              • 911

              Others have already said the state will defend this tax by bringing up Pittman-Robertson. Will be interesting to see how we proceed in this fight.

              Comment

              • #8
                Sgt Raven
                Veteran Member
                • Dec 2005
                • 3760

                I haven't thought about California general tax regulations for 10-15 years.
                Wasn't there a Prop where they have to get 2/3rds vote for new or increase in taxes?
                sigpic
                DILLIGAF
                "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice"
                "Once is Happenstance, Twice is Coincidence, Thrice is Enemy Action"
                "The flak is always heaviest, when you're over the target"

                Comment

                • #9
                  BigMac90660
                  Member
                  • Jan 2017
                  • 440

                  Originally posted by Sgt Raven
                  I haven't thought about California general tax regulations for 10-15 years.
                  Wasn't there a Prop where they have to get 2/3rds vote for new or increase in taxes?
                  Newsom got a crooked judge to remove the proposition from the ballot. Think he said it was undemocratic.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    CitaDeL
                    Calguns Addict
                    • May 2007
                    • 5843

                    Make tar and feathers great again.



                    Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Sgt Raven
                      Veteran Member
                      • Dec 2005
                      • 3760

                      Originally posted by BigMac90660

                      Newsom got a crooked judge to remove the proposition from the ballot. Think he said it was undemocratic.
                      No I'm thinking of an older one from before 1995 but newer than 1980.
                      sigpic
                      DILLIGAF
                      "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice"
                      "Once is Happenstance, Twice is Coincidence, Thrice is Enemy Action"
                      "The flak is always heaviest, when you're over the target"

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        TrappedinCalifornia
                        Calguns Addict
                        • Jan 2018
                        • 7633

                        Originally posted by Sgt Raven
                        I haven't thought about California general tax regulations for 10-15 years.
                        Wasn't there a Prop where they have to get 2/3rds vote for new or increase in taxes?
                        Proposition 62 (1986) maybe?

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Sgt Raven
                          Veteran Member
                          • Dec 2005
                          • 3760

                          Originally posted by TrappedinCalifornia
                          That might be what was tickling my memory.
                          I know starting with Prop 13 property taxes, we have been trying to put a straight jacket on our tax laws.
                          sigpic
                          DILLIGAF
                          "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice"
                          "Once is Happenstance, Twice is Coincidence, Thrice is Enemy Action"
                          "The flak is always heaviest, when you're over the target"

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            MountainLion
                            Member
                            • Sep 2009
                            • 483

                            Originally posted by BigMac90660

                            Newsom got a crooked judge to remove the proposition from the ballot. Think he said it was undemocratic.
                            Correction: It was not Newsom, and it was not one judge. The California Supreme Court removed it from the ballot, because it was drafted using the wrong procedure. The proposition claimed to amend the California constitution, which can be done solely by the voters. The court decided that it revised the constitution (note the difference between amend and revise), which has to be started by the legislature. The proponents of the measure could amend this decision to the US Supreme Court, but I don't think they have done so. Even if they did, it would be very unlikely that SCOTUS would address it. But it would be interesting to see what SCOTUS would do in this case.
                            meow

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              CALI-gula
                              Calguns Addict
                              • Jan 2006
                              • 6540

                              Calguns has really fallen hard. If this had been any time between 2006 - 2016, there would have been over 300 posts in this thread by now discussing it, angles of approach, detailed legal explanation and potential other methods for attack.

                              Seems like nobody cares anymore.

                              I have to wonder how much of the apathy is caused by;

                              1) proactive gun owners leaving California,
                              2) older more proactive gun owners that gave a damn are now dying off,
                              3) the challenges of posting on Calguns over the past year prior to the update caused many previous members to bail on Calguns for good,
                              4) the update itself not being as user-friendly as the old version had been causing many previous members to bail on Calguns for good,
                              5) the anti-NRA crowd finally got their wish of neutering the NRA, which has helped expand a stigma of gun ownership in general, whether you like or hate WLP, and whether he had any influence in that or not,
                              6) or California politicians finally gaining traction with younger generations in brain-washing them through their anti-gun marketing campaigns, to get them to willingly and voluntarily eschew their 2nd Amendment civil-rights and abhor firearms, trading gun ownership, culpability, and independence for surrogate pursuits of weed, porn, video-games, transgender/DEI-games, climate-change blame, student loan 'forgiveness', support for Hamas/Hezbollah, socialism, welfare, passivity and plenty of other false, vacuous parasitic endeavors that government is all to willing to help them be saddled with.

                              .
                              ------------------------

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              UA-8071174-1