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

[Elgatodeacero]

Would have been wise to have some of the original, or separate group of plaintiffs, filing for refunds of the 11% excise tax while this was pending.

this is a pretty cynical delay tactic by the State of California, and will add at least a year to this litigation.

if we are lucky, the Supreme Court will grant cert in the Georgia adult speech tax case and mention the 2nd Amendment in the opinion to end this.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

...this is a pretty cynical delay tactic by the State of California, and will add at least a year to this litigation...

I doubt anyone who actually follows gun issues in California with even a modicum of attention expected anything different.

[abinsinia]

I doubt anyone who actually follows gun issues in California with even a modicum of attention expected anything different.

The lawyer Mr. Dale didn't expect it. It says in the video that he was hoping they wouldn't do this, but they did. Ooooops, add a years delay.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

The lawyer Mr. Dale didn't expect it. It says in the video that he was hoping they wouldn't do this, but they did. Ooooops, add a years delay.

Hoping they wouldn't means a certain level of expectation that they could/would. What we have to hope is if they dood it, they get a whippin'...

[flyer898]

Where do we stand now? The state demurred (basically a "so what") to the amended complaint and the CRPA (Paintiff's) response is to give up (ask for a dismissal).
What is the strategy now?

[abinsinia]

Where do we stand now? The state demurred (basically a "so what") to the amended complaint and the CRPA (Paintiff's) response is to give up (ask for a dismissal).
What is the strategy now?

They have to file complaints to the bureaucrats regarding the tax, and try to get them to stop the tax. If that fails, which it will, then they can re-file this case again.

[Dvrjon]

This is amateur night.

They knew the administrative procedure issues existed and hoped the state’s lawyers would miss it. Oooops. Now they have to go through the admin remedies process before they can litigate the statute.

In an early video by Chuck Michel of CRPA, he stated they didn’t know if the action should be filed in state or federal court, with no mention of admin procedures taking precedence. As the current video states, this type of tax has been proposed in past years. But, apparently no one in the past has given thought #1 to what challenging it would mean.

These aren’t “roadblocks” being set up by the Administration, these are well-known and understood practices which our side either missed or willfully ignored.

This will increase the timeline and jack up costs, but CRPA is now pushing for $$$$ to litigate suppressors.

Overall, pretty disappointing.

[M1A Rifleman]

Have not been following this issue, but I recall the CRPA attorney stating this tax was complicated and not so straight forward as it’s not a 2A issue.

Can someone explain where we are and why is removing this such an issue since SCOTUS already ruled that taxes on ink are a limit to the 1st Amendment.

[flyer898]

No more donations until we have some word on this issue.

[Dvrjon]

Here’s CRPA’s BS spin on the matter. https://crpa.org/news/alert/state-bl...11-excise-tax/

They claim DOJ is throwing up roadblocks, but if you watch the video you’ll see and hear that CRPA knew there was an administrative challenge to make before going to court. In an earlier video, Chuck Michel also stated they didn’t know if they should file in state or federal court.

This bill’s provisions have circulated before, but CRPA appears to be clueless.

With this misstep, we have lost a full year (the bill took effect as law on July 1 2024) and we have no idea where they are on the admin action.

[The Gleam]

Here’s CRPA’s BS spin on the matter. https://crpa.org/news/alert/state-bl...11-excise-tax/

They claim DOJ is throwing up roadblocks, but if you watch the video you’ll see and hear that CRPA knew there was an administrative challenge to make before going to court. In an earlier video, Chuck Michel also stated they didn’t know if they should file in state or federal court.

This bill’s provisions have circulated before, but CRPA appears to be clueless.

With this misstep, we have lost a full year (the bill took effect as law on July 1 2024) and we have no idea where they are on the admin action.

Chuck Michel is anything but clueless.

But to your point, I'm of the belief that I'm not so sure they even cared much about fighting a 'cost of things' and were more focused in fighting for other rights-oriented endeavors that were blocked, other than a mere monetary cost. Do I agree with that? No. But I think the reality is not that they were clueless, but that they felt more strongly about fighting such things as carry bans, spiteful CCW obstructions, magazine capacity restrictions and other parts of Prop 63, the youth/gun marketing ban, and the 1-per-30 limits.

Yet, I do agree that the problem with fighting a tax that is connected to a civil right is quite a challenge, as to whether best results arrive from a State or Federal fight - especially in this case as it's not as simple as a 'poll tax'. So i don't think it was mishandled, but instead i get the impression the approach was slightly anemic due to a passive or indifferent attitude about whether that 11% was all that important to those where money is not as tight an issue. So does CRPA have an elitist outlook on that? Maybe.

That is just my impression on what I saw about the updates and PR about it - which seemed limp wristed - I'm not proposing that is a fact. They could have just as well been sheepish about reporting on it because they took the wrong fork in the road, by bad luck alone, and it created delays.



---

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Chuck Michel is anything but clueless.

But to your point, I'm of the belief that I'm not so sure they even cared much about fighting a 'cost of things' and were more focused in fighting for other rights-oriented endeavors that were blocked, other than a mere monetary cost. Do I agree with that? No. But I think the reality is not that they were clueless, but that they felt more strongly about fighting such things as carry bans, spiteful CCW obstructions, magazine capacity restrictions and other parts of Prop 63, the youth/gun marketing ban, and the 1-per-30 limits.

Yet, I do agree that the problem with fighting a tax that is connected to a civil right is quite a challenge, as to whether best results arrive from a State or Federal fight - especially in this case as it's not as simple as a 'poll tax'. So i don't think it was mishandled, but instead i get the impression the approach was slightly anemic due to a passive or indifferent attitude about whether that 11% was all that important to those where money is not as tight an issue. So does CRPA have an elitist outlook on that? Maybe.

That is just my impression on what I saw about the updates and PR about it - which seemed limp wristed - I'm not proposing that is a fact. They could have just as well been sheepish about reporting on it because they took the wrong fork in the road, by bad luck alone, and it created delays.



---

I think you are, at least partially, correct.

Remember, when the tax went into effect, Biden was still President. Thus, the decision as to whether to file in State or Federal court was, perceptually, a coin toss. Likewise, as you say, their 'focus' was on other things and, for many, the 11% just doesn't seem to be perceived as 'that big a deal.'

The frustration, however, for many is that there just seems to be increasing delays in a challenge and for many of those individuals, they don't necessarily see a quick and decisive end. This is precisely what the Left preys on in the hope that 'our side' gives up out of frustration and sheer exhaustion. In the midst of that, they encourage 'dissension in the ranks' where they set 'groups' against each other or attempt to. Younger gun owners against old fogeys. Affluent vs. not so affluent. Etc.

As you say, Michel isn't clueless. However, the 'answer' isn't so cut and dried as many think or would like it to be.

[TTT]

It's not the 11% that bothers me, it's that the money will be given to anti-gun organizations to fund their operations.

[The Gleam]

It's not the 11% that bothers me, it's that the money will be given to anti-gun organizations to fund their operations.

Agree - the whole thing is spiteful, hostile, hateful Anti-American/Anti-Civil Rights garbage.

Imagine if Newsom had set up a poll tax on blacks to then give the proceeds to organizations that sought funding to bring back segregation. Taxing a civil right to further discourage efficacy of the pwoples' ability to express and enjoy that civil right.

That's what tyrants do.

---