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

[Creeping Incrementalism]

For a sales tax, the vendor doesn't pay the tax, they collect it from the buyer as a separate line item. So every vendor becomes a tax collector for the state where the buyer resides if done by mail order, and is supposed to be knowledgeable in every state's sales tax, and even worse, sales tax exemption laws, which are awful to deal with, even with a computer program or web-based software.

For an excise tax, while I never dealt with it professionally, it seems simpler because a registered vendor just needs to, in this case, submit a quarterly report to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration listing sales, and then pay the tax. However, looking at California tax code right now, there is one wrinkle -- exemptions for LEO and retired LEO. Does anyone know if Pittman-Robertson has exemptions for non-federal law enforcement, and how that is handled?

[joepamjohn]

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

It's the CA way.

If they taxed marijuanna or booze the same way there would be public outcry.

[LBDamned]

If they taxed marijuanna or booze the same way there would be public outcry.

If given the option, they would vote then same way.

CA loves voting in new taxes.

Put it on the ballot and see.

[cz74]

For a sales tax, the vendor doesn't pay the tax, they collect it from the buyer as a separate line item. So every vendor becomes a tax collector for the state where the buyer resides if done by mail order, and is supposed to be knowledgeable in every state's sales tax, and even worse, sales tax exemption laws, which are awful to deal with, even with a computer program or web-based software.

For an excise tax, while I never dealt with it professionally, it seems simpler because a registered vendor just needs to, in this case, submit a quarterly report to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration listing sales, and then pay the tax. However, looking at California tax code right now, there is one wrinkle -- exemptions for LEO and retired LEO. Does anyone know if Pittman-Robertson has exemptions for non-federal law enforcement, and how that is handled?

Is CDTFA the agency overseeing administering this excise tax? The law says this 11% excise is paid by FFL/dealer/manufacturer, if Sportsmans or Turners put that tax on the receipt and charge it to consumer, isn't that violating this law? Could this bring plaintiffs for lawsuits?

[BOBGBA]

Just got an email from Target Sports USA about the 11% ammo tax. But the email didn't exactly say specifically they would start collecting the tax for sales to CA customers. So not sure of the email other than a marketing gimmick to sell their ammo membership.

The tax is technically on the seller, not the customer so is Target Sports going to start paying the tax to CA? Or are they trying to pull a fast one and collect an extra 11% "tax" they aren't required to pay? Target Sports isn't located in CA. Why would they have to pay the tax to CA? If there is a tax to collect, maybe it would be on the FFL doing the ammo transfer? But they aren't technically the seller, so why would the transfer FFL be subject to the tax?

I fear a lot of out of state sellers and transfer FFLs are all to happy to collect an extra 11% "tax" that they can keep for themselves.

No legitimate business is going to take the risk of collecting a tax and not remitting it.

Most likely, Target Sports USA will either collect the excise tax or stop shipping to CA.
If the excise tax doesn't appear on the invoice, I would bet your local FFL will collect it from you.

I think your fear is misplaced.

Hears what you should be worried will happen:

1) More out of state sellers will stop shipping to California
2) Those that will ship to CA will add a "CA excise tax collection fee" to your invoice
3) More CA FFLs will stop accepting ammo that customers order from someone else.

[Preston-CLB]

Here is an article from Chuck Michel at CRPA about the strategy to fight this onerous bill.

https://crpa.org/news/blogs/crpa-statement-plans-to-challenge-the-new-11-excise-tax-on-firearm-and-ammunition-sales/

-P

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Here is an article from Chuck Michel at CRPA about the strategy to fight this onerous bill.

https://crpa.org/news/blogs/crpa-statement-plans-to-challenge-the-new-11-excise-tax-on-firearm-and-ammunition-sales/

-P

I think this portion expresses the overarching concern well...

As I see it, this is part of the fallout from the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare where it was ruled, in essence, that Government can tax you just for existing. It set a dangerous and hideous precedent where we see things like "want to challenge this tax if legally possible." It gives Government, at various levels, entirely too much power to impose taxes and regulations where citizens have no or no perceptible recourse. Worse. It gives almost seeming 'absolute authority' to whatever ideology is in power; which is why concern is being expressed over the California Supreme Court decision... California Supreme Court pulls tax measure from November ballot...

...Current law allows the Legislature to increase state taxes by a two-thirds majority vote. The initiative, a proposed amendment to the state Constitution, would keep that standard but would also require a majority of California voters to approve the increase before it could take effect.

It would also require local voters to approve any increases approved by city or county governments in their taxes or licensing fees, with a two-thirds majority required to raise funds for specific programs. And it would apply retroactively to all taxes and fees that have been raised since the start of 2022, canceling them unless approved within 12 months by the lawmakers and voters designated in the ballot measure.

Newsom and legislative Democrats, joined by many local government leaders and by former Gov. Jerry Brown

This is the concern many are expressing. It's not so much whether you are pro- or anti- gun. It's about the extent of Government power to exert authority over the citizenry without being bothered by the citizenry or that portion most directly impacted in terms of a 'redress of grievances.' You know. One of those other Constitutionally guaranteed 'rights' which are now being openly and overtly questioned by Government actors.

[norcalsig]

If they taxed marijuanna or booze the same way there would be public outcry.

They do, recreational marijuana has an additional 15% tax.

[MountainLion]

It's about the extent of Government power to exert authority over the citizenry without being bothered by the citizenry or that portion most directly impacted in terms of a 'redress of grievances.' You know. One of those other Constitutionally guaranteed 'rights' which are now being openly and overtly questioned by Government actors.

Have you or anyone you know been prevented from petitioning the government to address grievances? Were you jailed for sending a letter or an e-mail to your state assembly or senate member when complaining about the new tax? Did a state agency refuse to accept delivery of your letter containing a grievance?

We live in a representative democracy. The sovereign (the voters) elect representatives, who pass laws, including tax laws. There is nothing that says that all decisions of those parliaments have to be subject to review or approval by the voters. The correct process for the citizens to change the laws is to elect representatives who pass different laws. Sucks being in the minority, doesn't it?

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Have you or anyone you know been prevented from petitioning the government to address grievances? Were you jailed for sending a letter or an e-mail to your state assembly or senate member when complaining about the new tax? Did a state agency refuse to accept delivery of your letter containing a grievance?

We live in a representative democracy. The sovereign (the voters) elect representatives, who pass laws, including tax laws. There is nothing that says that all decisions of those parliaments have to be subject to review or approval by the voters. The correct process for the citizens to change the laws is to elect representatives who pass different laws. Sucks being in the minority, doesn't it?

Yes, it does suck. But... The 'correct process' is more than simply electing representatives who agree with you. Remember, the Bill of Rights is about those in the minority as much, if not more so, than those in the majority.

Can the majority change the Bill of Rights? Yes. But, it involves more than simply being in the majority.

Does being denied or prevented a 'redress of grievances' necessitate jail time or refusing to accept delivery or is there more to it than that?

In short, what you say is true; but, it is also an overly simplistic presentation.

[MountainLion]

Remember, the Bill of Rights is about those in the minority as much, if not more so, than those in the majority.

Absolutely. As an example, we don't need an 1A to protect speaking popular opinions. But: Having low taxes is not a constitutional right. It is perfectly within the constitution for the voters to elect "politicians" (both legislature and executive) that want to spend 99% of the GDP through the government. Is it is a good idea? Irrelevant question when considering legality and constitutionality.

Does being denied or prevented a 'redress of grievances' necessitate jail time or refusing to accept delivery or is there more to it than that?

Petitioning the government to redress grievances really does consist of sending letters (today e-mail), speaking at the 3 minutes reserved for the public in meetings, and today giving campaign contributions and hiring lawyers. Government has no obligation to actually address the grievances. There is no basic right in our system of government to take any question to a plebiscite. In particular not tax questions. Again, if you think this should change, you really need to elect representatives that make it so.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Absolutely. As an example, we don't need an 1A to protect speaking popular opinions. But: Having low taxes is not a constitutional right. It is perfectly within the constitution for the voters to elect "politicians" (both legislature and executive) that want to spend 99% of the GDP through the government. Is it is a good idea? Irrelevant question when considering legality and constitutionality.

The Constitutional right isn't about 'low taxes.' It's about...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Good and bad ideas are not Constitutionally relevant? That's a matter of perspective. If you want to narrow it to an overly simplistic and detached point of view, you are correct. However, when considering legality and Constitutionality, it is highly relevant in terms of public acceptance over the long haul. A prime example is the prohibition on alcohol. Did it pass and was it considered legal/Constitutional? Yes. How long did it last? Twelve or thirteen years, at least on the Federal level?

The reason? Mostly, because it fell under the rubric of what Jefferson referred to in the Declaration of Independence as: "light and transient causes." It's not that the problems associated with alcohol don't persist. It's that the solution was simply not a true 'remedy,' just a momentarily 'popular' one. More to the point, it was about restoring the legality of something which was still occurring, regardless of changes to the Constitution, and the Government being able to 'take advantage' of it via taxes. In that sense, it's also an example of 'redress of grievances.'

Petitioning the government to redress grievances really does consist of sending letters (today e-mail), speaking at the 3 minutes reserved for the public in meetings, and today giving campaign contributions and hiring lawyers. Government has no obligation to actually address the grievances. There is no basic right in our system of government to take any question to a plebiscite. In particular not tax questions. Again, if you think this should change, you really need to elect representatives that make it so.

By your own exemplars, you acknowledge that it involves more than simply electing people who agree with you. Add in my example of Prohibition, where the problems it didn't solve vs. the problems (including the costs) it created and you have another rationale prompting 'redress.'

Government has no obligation to CORRECT or make grievances WHOLE. It does, however, have an obligation to ADDRESS them in some fashion, even if only to acknowledge their existence. It's why there are so many procedures, legally and administratively, by which Government agencies take complaints. It's also why entire department branches exist in 'acknowledging' a complaint was filed and what the action was. Just like the DOJ letters when someone is rejected for an ammunition purchase. They don't provide a correction or remedy. The acknowledge your problem and explain what you can do to challenge the outcome.

Such is one of the prime issues surrounding the current furor over Prop 47, where the State Supreme Court removed the measure from the ballot. It wasn't about repealing Prop 47. It was about modifying it.

...Current law allows the Legislature to increase state taxes by a two-thirds majority vote. The initiative, a proposed amendment to the state Constitution, would keep that standard but would also require a majority of California voters to approve the increase before it could take effect.

It would also require local voters to approve any increases approved by city or county governments in their taxes or licensing fees, with a two-thirds majority required to raise funds for specific programs. And it would apply retroactively to all taxes and fees that have been raised since the start of 2022, canceling them unless approved within 12 months by the lawmakers and voters designated in the ballot measure.

Newsom and legislative Democrats, joined by many local government leaders and by former Gov. Jerry Brown

Modification is at the definitional heart of what "amend" means. It's also at the core of "revise." Thus, what you have, is Government playing a game of legerdemain to deny a Constitutional right.

In short, what you are misleadingly doing is conflating 'outcome' and 'process.' It's why Jefferson differentiated between "light and transient causes" and "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism." You see, 'revolution' is a natural extension of 'redress of grievances;' which is why the sentence in the Declaration ends: "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." Put another way, that last is why the Government has an obligation to address, which, definitionally, means that it recognizes the existence of grievances.

As stated in The Bill of Rights: First Amendment - Assembly and Petitioning...

Again, in short, it's what the entire 1st Amendment is all about. It's not about whether you or I or anyone else gets what they want as a 'resolution.' It's about being able to register a complaint/grievance. As stated in Right to Assemble and Petition...

This is where I expressed concern over phrasing such as "want to challenge this tax if legally possible." If it is not 'legally possible' to challenge a tax, then what is being said is that there is no process by which citizens can seek a 'redress of grievances.' It's the very basis upon which much of the criticism we levy complaints about Obamacare rests; i.e., SCOTUS, in essence, declared that the Government has a 'right' to tax someone or cause someone to pay a fee for simply existing.

The reason I bring up Obamacare? According to What tax changes did the Affordable Care Act make?

...To raise additional revenue for reform, the ACA imposed excise taxes on health insurers, pharmaceutical companies, and manufacturers of medical devices; raised taxes on high-income families; and increased limits on the income tax deduction for medical expenses...

[MountainLion]

Government has no obligation to CORRECT or make grievances WHOLE. It does, however, have an obligation to ADDRESS them in some fashion, even if only to acknowledge their existence.

Where exactly in the constitution (or court decisions) does it say that? I contend it does not. Example: The typical school board meeting. At the beginning, there is usually an agenda item where the public can communicate things to the board, with each speaker given 3 minutes. Typically, half of those are valid school issues (and you can see board members take notes, for later discussion and putting things on future agenda). The other half are crackpots complaining about something completely pointless. The board listens with stoic expressions, at the end of 3 minutes the chair thanks the speaker, and that's all she wrote. The only effect of this will be a mention in the minutes. So technically you are even correct: the school board has to mention in their minutes that they heard from Mr. Crackpot about Cockamamie, which is "acknowledging" it. In practice, nothing happens.

Modification is at the definitional heart of what "amend" means. It's also at the core of "revise." Thus, what you have, is Government playing a game of legerdemain to deny a Constitutional right.

The right to vote on certain taxes is indeed in the California constitution. That same constitution has two ways of changing itself, namely revise and amend. The decision whether a certain proposal is considered revise or amend is left for the courts to decide, ultimately (like most things in our society). The courts have decided. You don't like the decision, and call it legerdemain; good for you. The correct fix for that is (a) ask the plaintiffs to appeal to the next higher court (theoretically, SCOTUS can review state Supreme Court cases), or (b) in the future vote for different justices (they have to be re-elected every few years). Claiming that the decision is unconstitutional is silly, given that exactly that court is given the power to interpret the California constitution.

You then point out that there is an option (c), named armed revolution, meaning violently overthrowing the current government. Absolutely correct. But I would not recommend it, unless you enjoy having holes in made in you. Those CHP are pretty good at shooting, and if they call in the park rangers and game wardens, any revolution in California is doomed. Seriously, how many people here remember what happened to Iggy's desk when it tried to act up?

If it is not 'legally possible' to challenge a tax, then what is being said is that there is no process by which citizens can seek a 'redress of grievances.'

It is perfectly legally possible to challenge a tax. But in this case not by one citizen overthrowing the government violently (the CHP will stop that), nor by a few citizens and their lawyers filing a lawsuit that lacks a legal theory (the courts will stop that), nor by thousands of citizens demanding to put a referendum on the ballot when the process for amending the law doesn't allow that (the law and the courts will stop that). The correct way to do it is to convince 50.1% (or sometimes 66.7%) of your fellow voters to stand with you, put a state assembly and senate into place that agrees with you, and the rest is easy as pie.

What you are wanting here is the right of the minority to waste a lot of money and time on court cases and elections that have no chance of going anywhere. Sorry, but the right to petition the government does not mean that you get to decide what the court calendar is, and what is on the ballet. We have a process for that, follow it. Don't like the process? We have a process for changing the process. Don't like that process either? Move to Robinson Crusoe's island, where you can be the majority. Sorry to be so harsh, but nothing in the fate of Prop 47 is particularly unconstitutional.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Where exactly in the constitution (or court decisions) does it say that? I contend it does not. Example: The typical school board meeting. At the beginning, there is usually an agenda item where the public can communicate things to the board, with each speaker given 3 minutes. Typically, half of those are valid school issues (and you can see board members take notes, for later discussion and putting things on future agenda). The other half are crackpots complaining about something completely pointless. The board listens with stoic expressions, at the end of 3 minutes the chair thanks the speaker, and that's all she wrote. The only effect of this will be a mention in the minutes. So technically you are even correct: the school board has to mention in their minutes that they heard from Mr. Crackpot about Cockamamie, which is "acknowledging" it. In practice, nothing happens.

Which is exactly what I said. As I pointed out, it is the traditional understanding of the right, even if it is not laid out verbatim in the 1st Amendment; which is the case with all the Amendments. They have to 'address' it. They don't have to remedy or fix what is complained about.

The right to vote on certain taxes is indeed in the California constitution. That same constitution has two ways of changing itself, namely revise and amend. The decision whether a certain proposal is considered revise or amend is left for the courts to decide, ultimately (like most things in our society). The courts have decided. You don't like the decision, and call it legerdemain; good for you. The correct fix for that is (a) ask the plaintiffs to appeal to the next higher court (theoretically, SCOTUS can review state Supreme Court cases), or (b) in the future vote for different justices (they have to be re-elected every few years). Claiming that the decision is unconstitutional is silly, given that exactly that court is given the power to interpret the California constitution.

I didn't claim it was 'unconstitutional.' What I claimed is that there is concern over the legerdemain being utilized to declare it null and void; i.e., concern over the process in deciding that it doesn't adhere to the 'accepted' definitional distinction between 'amend' and 'revise.' The net result is a denial of a Constitutional right.

You then point out that there is an option (c), named armed revolution, meaning violently overthrowing the current government. Absolutely correct. But I would not recommend it, unless you enjoy having holes in made in you. Those CHP are pretty good at shooting, and if they call in the park rangers and game wardens, any revolution in California is doomed. Seriously, how many people here remember what happened to Iggy's desk when it tried to act up?

What you or I would recommend is irrelevant. As I said, 'revolution' is a natural extension of 'redress of grievances' and it is the very thing the Declaration of Independence was about. Do we have 'those kind of people today' and would they be able to pull it off? But, in theory, it boils down to why the Founders provided the right and the Governmental obligation; i.e., a 'safety valve.' Such is why it should not be about "light and transient causes" and needs to concern real, long-term problems. It's also the very reason there is concern, among many, as to how things have been 'shut down' in that the 'safety valve' may not be allowed to function by those currently 'in power.'

It is perfectly legally possible to challenge a tax. But in this case not by one citizen overthrowing the government violently (the CHP will stop that), nor by a few citizens and their lawyers filing a lawsuit that lacks a legal theory (the courts will stop that), nor by thousands of citizens demanding to put a referendum on the ballot when the process for amending the law doesn't allow that (the law and the courts will stop that). The correct way to do it is to convince 50.1% (or sometimes 66.7%) of your fellow voters to stand with you, put a state assembly and senate into place that agrees with you, and the rest is easy as pie.

That is ONE way and, potentially, the 'easiest.' It's not necessarily the only 'correct' way. Remember, it wasn't about the hyperbole the media portrayed and it wasn't about a repeal. This is the bone of contention and what I was talking about in reference to 'amend' vs. 'revise' and a game of legerdemain. There remain other steps which can still be taken. Will any subsequent decision be made in time for the Fall election? I'm dubious. But, that doesn't mean it's not worth the effort.

What you are wanting here is the right of the minority to waste a lot of money and time on court cases and elections that have no chance of going anywhere. Sorry, but the right to petition the government does not mean that you get to decide what the court calendar is, and what is on the ballet. We have a process for that, follow it. Don't like the process? We have a process for changing the process. Don't like that process either? Move to Robinson Crusoe's island, where you can be the majority. Sorry to be so harsh, but nothing in the fate of Prop 47 is particularly unconstitutional.

I'm glad you're 'satisfied' with Prop 47. Many others are not. Once again, rights have (or are supposed to have) nothing to do with whether one is part of 'the minority' or part of 'the majority.' Frankly, we don't honestly know where the electorate, let alone the population as a whole, currently falls in that respect in relation to the proposed amendments; which was the reason it was being put on the ballot until the State Supreme Court ruled what it did.

Again, you're trying to make this out to be something 'personal' with me and it's not. Likewise, it involves A LOT more people, many of them actual experts in the Law who disagree with you. If you'll recall, over 900,000 signatures were submitted. Put another way, this isn't necessarily an effort of a tiny minority or a 'specialized interest group' looking to waste time and money while 'the majority' are trying to quash it. It's about people who have been directly impacted by the results of Prop 47 who now have a 'grievance' they want addressed and, they hope, amended so as to be potentially less detrimental to their 'way of Life.'

But, in respect to your comments about 'wasting time and money,' if you feel that 'challenging' something a decade after it was passed and is proving to be less than what was 'advertised' is a 'waste' because you disagree with how they're doing it, despite their own legal experts having advised them it was possible, uh...

You see, your 'process to fix the process' is the real issue here. First, there are processes (plural) which could, potentially, come into play. Second, there is no guarantee that the process, even as you cite it, will be allowed to be invoked given those currently in power disagree with the proposed 'fixes' for political rather than pragmatic reasons. Finally, the 'Constitutionality' of what happened has yet to be definitively determined; a determination which doesn't necessarily ultimately rest with the Judicial System. Remember, in our System, while the Judicial System gets its say, the final power rests with the People and that is the ultimate concern I and many others are referring to; i.e., are the People being sidestepped and/or blocked from availing themselves of the System? If so, then what are the potential 'next steps' which might be invoked and how will that impact things?

It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

[DB>]

Let's see - a TAX on a Constitutional RIGHT....

What if the right to free speech was subject to a TAX?
A TAX was required to attend the religious services of your choice...?
A TAX was required to prevent them using your house to domicile government troops?
A TAX was required to prevent discrimination against you based upon your skin color, age, or sex, etc?

The focus should be on the analogues that inevitably could be passed when one thing or another falls into disfavor... we are not just being taxed without representation, we are being taxed based upon OPINION and FEELINGS, and freedom is fading away, one cut at a time. Death by 1000 cuts...