Why is no one fighting against this 11% tax hike on gun purchases starting July 1?

[offrdmania]

California residents will start paying an 11% tax on gun purchases starting July 1 and I have yet to see any lawsuits. I wonder why the subject is moot. Baffling

[Preston-CLB]

Here's a video of Chuck Michel, president of CRPA discussing AB 28. Hope it helps.

There is a thread at CalGuns on this. You might try searching for it.
-P

[42ndDR]

I would venture to guess that a good portion of the tax collected will be used to feed the gun control lawyers to support politicians and how distasteful it would be to fund your enemy. Give them more money and they will pass more anti-gun laws.

[9Cal_OC]

California residents will start paying an 11% tax on gun purchases starting July 1 and I have yet to see any lawsuits. I wonder why the subject is moot. Baffling

Lead the way.

[aca72]

Some media chatter...

New Gun Control Law and 11% Tax Takes Effect July 1st and Nobody Seems To Care (msn.com)

New Gun Control Law and 11% Tax Takes Effect July 1st and Nobody Seems To Care - unitedliberty.com

[Fjold]

You can't file suit without standing. If you haven't paid the tax you are not affected by it. After someone actually pays the tax, the suits will be filed.

[offrdmania]

Here's a video of Chuck Michel, president of CRPA discussing AB 28. Hope it helps.

There is a thread at CalGuns on this. You might try searching for it.
-P

I would have if the search actually brought back results but im not seeing a thread anywhere. In which subforum did you see it?

[Javb08]

There the video that is about AB28.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

You can't file suit without standing. If you haven't paid the tax you are not affected by it. After someone actully pays the tax, the suits will be filed.

Just remember, this is a tax, not on the end purchasers, but on those in the supply pipeline. As Michel noted, it will be easy for the courts to 'sidetrack' lawsuits over standing. Another question which will come up is whether California Government can take umbrage upon someone who fights this; i.e., making it a pejorative proposition?

I would contend that one of the avenues of attack is found toward the beginning where it states: "Existing law imposes various taxes, including taxes on the privilege of engaging in certain activities."

Keep and bear could be argued not to include the supply side. Yet, without the supply side, how to you keep and bear? Such is particularly true in California where the State now requires virtually every transaction to go through an FFL. So... Is it a 'privilege' or is it an intrinsic part of the 'right' when it comes to 'engaged in the business?'

What was it Michel said about 'distractions?'

Unfortunately, I don't think this is going to be over quickly.

[jcwatchdog]

Just remember, this is a tax, not on the end purchasers, but on those in the supply pipeline. As Michel noted, it will be easy for the courts to 'sidetrack' lawsuits over standing. Another question which will come up is whether California Government can take umbrage upon someone who fights this; i.e., making it a pejorative proposition?

I would contend that one of the avenues of attack is found toward the beginning where it states: "Existing law imposes various taxes, including taxes on the privilege of engaging in certain activities."

Keep and bear could be argued not to include the supply side. Yet, without the supply side, how to you keep and bear? Such is particularly true in California where the State now requires virtually every transaction to go through an FFL. So... Is it a 'privilege' or is it an intrinsic part of the 'right' when it comes to 'engaged in the business?'

What was it Michel said about 'distractions?'

Unfortunately, I don't think this is going to be over quickly.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Actually, it's not exactly 'arbitrary.' It's based on the same rate as the Pittman-Robertson Act, an excise tax which has been in place since 1937. (Is that a 'long-standing tradition?') That's their primary selling point; i.e., such an excise tax on a Constitutional Right already exists vis a vis the Federal Government.

The problem is that the monies collected by the Federal Government are, in fact, distributed to the states already. Meaning that California is saying, in effect, we want MORE money imposed on a Constitutional Right in this State.

Another problem is that the monies go to the states provided they meet certain criteria; i.e., the money is used for wildlife management, which is directly beneficial to the gun/ammunition/archery equipment owners. Meanwhile, California wants it to be used for the 'benefit' of all. In short, an tax on a specific, Constitutional Right which minimally (or marginally) benefits the owners of said equipment.

As I said, there's more than a bit of legerdemain in play.

[LBDamned]

CA doesn't fight any taxes... they usually vote for more tax.

It's the CA way.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

associated with criminal organizations seeking to profit from illicit markets.?..

Of the four ATF product families, firearms have enjoyed the absence of any state excise taxes. Until now...

U.S. gun sales have grown tenfold over the past 20 yearscolleagues and I modeled the U.S. market for firearms and determined that for every 1% increase in price, demand decreases by 2.6%. This means that the market should be very sensitive to tax increases.

Using these figures, another colleague recently estimated

See? Why should we be fighting it? It will do such wonderful things.

It's not like they are attempting to tax a Constitutional Right or anything. Sheesh.

[Fastattack]

Seems racist because people of color can't afford to pay taxes. Or so they say, regarding the poll tax anyway.

[ProfChaos]

You can't file suit without standing. If you haven't paid the tax you are not affected by it. After someone actually pays the tax, the suits will be filed.

And this allows these anti 2A laws to keep dogpiling on. You cannot sue until it goes into effect. At that point the courts just say "we must uphold the tradition in place while we sort this out".