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

[Rickybillegas]

I wonder how if the prohibition for online ammo purchases is truck down or injuncted again (remember 'freedom week and a half?) how're they gonna tax out of state purchases?

[abinsinia]

I wonder how if the prohibition for online ammo purchases is truck down or injuncted again (remember 'freedom week and a half?) how're they gonna tax out of state purchases?

I don't think it would apply, but on your taxes they ask for "USE TAX" which is sales tax from mail order where they did not charge sales tax.

[Tahoeshooter]

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

This was one of my arguments against the added ammo fees and certification. They love to talk about things negatively affecting "marginalized" or "minority" communities because of increased costs, from health insurance to voting rights. So using the same logic it can easily be concluded that added fees on firearms disproportionately disadvantages those communities. Oh but wait, if that's a problem for the supporters, they'd just try to make those communities exempt as part of an equity measure.

[Tahoeshooter]

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.

I love how the LA Times Opinion section makes all these quotes of others as if the the sources are actually correct about something. LAT is progressive propaganda, plain and simple.

[chris]

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.

The Pittman-Robertson Act actually funds something gun owners generally do not object to. California will use it to fund more gun control legislation research ie Dr. Wintermute and his ilk will get more money to use his research against us.

Didn't Newsom call this a sin tax? If so we know what he means. He wants this tax to price out the poor and also make people feel guilty for exercising their rights.

[Rickybillegas]

colleagues 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 that the California excise tax would reduce gun sales by 30% to 44%

This entire presentation is dishonest in that it presumes as fact that "more guns = more crime", which is far from fact and highly disputed by a number of scholars. John Lott is only one of several such scholars.
Even Rand Corp. considers this issue as disputable, or 'inconclusive'.
Notice how the author does not even make a consideration or mention statistics (CDC, FBI) that bear truth to the fact that show there are far more violent crimes prevented by armed citizens than actual gun crimes.
This is trash journalism and has no business being published in any reputable paper or magazine. There was a time not so long ago when it would have been rejected by the editor. Sadly, not anymore.
Makes your blood boil.

[Kyle1886]

In my 8 plus decades on the ole marble, I have learned that if those in power don't like it, tax it, control it or ban it. Doesn't matter if it is from a lowly school district or our 'friends' in upper government.

...but the that's old news to most.

Kyle

[splithoof]

I don't think it would apply, but on your taxes they ask for "USE TAX" which is sales tax from mail order where they did not charge sales tax.

NO

[Ki6vsm]

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.

Wow. That was downright nauseating to read. And infuriating at the same time.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

The Pittman-Robertson Act actually funds something gun owners generally do not object to. California will use it to fund more gun control legislation research ie Dr. Wintermute and his ilk will get more money to use his research against us.

Didn't Newsom call this a sin tax? If so we know what he means. He wants this tax to price out the poor and also make people feel guilty for exercising their rights.

Close, but not quite... 27 September 2023 - NRA slams Newsom's 'sin tax' comments on gun law amid spiraling crime: 'ignoring criminals'

In other words, he compared it to a 'sin tax,' but didn't necessarily call it one. Bear in mind that a 'sin tax' is a tax on goods and services deemed harmful to society and that's what he was getting it; i.e., he wants gun owners, et al. to pay for the 'harmful' aspects. The problem is that it's not the legitimate gun owners which, by and large, create the harmful aspects. Likewise, those things which are typically subject to a 'sin tax,' such as alcohol or tobacco or gambling, are not clearly enumerated, Constitutional Rights. In short, what he is taxing is the Left's perception of firearms rather than the item or its direct effects. On top of all that, as I said, it is of little, direct benefit to those who are legitimately exercising their Constitutional Right; whereas the Pittman-Robertson money is directly related to the activities which are part of the right's normal and legal exercise.

[DCoakley]

How about a sin tax on vehicles. They kill too. Fast food is another. And my favorite anything that has the old Prop. 65 sticker that this can cause cancer.

[karsk]

i just find it amusing how people still think lawfare is going to work on the state level. lets face it, california and new york are rogue states. there is no political solution to this problem.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

The 'sin tax' angle appears to be what they are playing up. From about a week ago... California is about to tax guns more like alcohol and tobacco ? and that could put a dent in gun violence

Starting in July 2024, California will be the first state to charge an excise tax11% levy on each sale10% or 11% for firearmsGun Violence Prevention and School Safety Act as an affront to the Constitution. But the reaction from the gun lobby and firearms manufactures may hint at something else: the impact that the measure, which is aimed at reducing gun violence, may have on sales.

As a professor who studies

The author even has a chart entitled "Vice Taxes in the Southwest." It shows that, in California, the 'vice taxes' on firearms will be higher than on alcohol.

Similarly, as many have warned, if it is allowed to stand, it could easily spread. As the author notes...

illegally transport

You mean laws don't necessary inhibit illegal activities? Who'da thunk it?

By the way, with all the rhetoric in the piece, the only allusion (not acknowledgement) that it is a Constitutional Right is from the NRA quote; but, you'll note he says the NRA's concern is based on sales.

Sin. Vice. Greed. Uh... That's how they view a Constitutional Right?!?!

What might that portend about the rest of our rights?
?

[Librarian]

In the mail today from CRPA ...

potentialplaintiffs@michellawyers.comDonate today!

C.D. Michel
President and General Counsel, California Rifle & Pistol

[Scotty]

How about gun stores sell a $750 gun for a sale price of $0.20. BUT require you to rent a pen to complete your dros form for $749.80.