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

[MountainLion]

The net result is a denial of a Constitutional right.

Sorry, but voting on details of "how government works", such as taxes, is not a constitutional right.

I'm glad you're 'satisfied' with Prop 47.

Did I say anywhere that I am happy that it is not on the ballot? Because I'm not satisfied with it being removed from the ballot. Do I think that prop 47 is a good idea? No, as proposed it is a horrible idea. I think it is unworkable, and also goes against the important principle of our country (and state) being a representative republic. The US is not Switzerland, and California is not Appenzell-Innerrhoden: one of the last places that has no legislature, but the assembly of all voters *IS* the legislative body. For those reasons, it should be rejected, but it ought to be rejected by the voters.

However, the movement behind prop 47 raises an important point: The way taxation (including fees and hidden taxes, such as CARB fees and DMV weight taxes) works is insanely complex, which has led to our taxes being the highest in the nation. A small fraction of the taxes are determined by the voters, but the bulk are not. This is already insane: spend millions to print ballots and campaign to let the voters decide on dozens or hundreds of $ each, while the average voter has to pay thousands or tens of thousands that only the legislature controls. And even for direct democracy, the rules are insane. For example, school taxes require 50%, 55% or 66.7% to pass, and which one it is seems to depend on whether the moon is in aquarius on election day. Seriously, look up sometime why some school parcel taxes only require a 50% majority: only nuts, fruits and flakes (i.e., Californians) could have come up with such nonsense. And then our tax system is one of the most unfair and uneven of them all. The casus belli here is prop 13: the amount of property tax can easily vary by a factor of 5 or 10 between neighbors with similar houses, and in general individual residences have a much higher effective tax rate than commercial properties. Some people consider this to be a great and just thing (because their constituency pays little), others consider this to be terrible and unjust (for the opposite reason), and both sides are wrong: the problem is that the tax structure is unfair. Prop 47 has the potential to become "the coming of the great white handkerchief", and force our state to put some common sense into our tax structure.

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 ...

I disagree. In our system, the courts are the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality. Yes, court decisions are regularly overruled by either legislatures, or by referendum. But those acts of overruling are themselves subject to the power of the courts. One example is prop 8: while the people of California declared that same-sex marriage is illegal, a court later told them that they are wrong. The counter-example is Anderson: the state Supreme Court said that the death penalty is cruel and/or unusual; the voters disagreed and by referendum reinstated it. But even that example works within the framework of the courts having the ultimate powerthe court voluntarily accepted being overridden, even expressing its regrets in the Frierson decision).

The ultimate way the people have to override a final determination by the courts would be a revolution, and putting a new system into place. But much more practically and easily, they can also elect new representatives, who can then change the laws or the constitution, thereby forcing the court's hand. I repeat: that is the correct process for the people to deal with court decisions they don't like. There is no constitutional right for a proposition or referendum to be the ultima ratio, in neither this country nor this state.

[MountainLion]

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

A tax on the 2A has existed for nearly 100 years, the federal excise tax on guns and ammunition. It has never been found to be unconstitutional. Maybe it will be in the future? Stay tuned.

Reminder: There is also sales tax on guns and ammo.

What if the right to free speech was subject to a TAX?

There have been taxes on newsprint and ink. The only direct decision on the constitutionality of those was when there was a difference between taxes for small versus large newspapers, although it is often (but not universally) held that such a tax, even if applied fairly, would not pass muster today. But there are also fees for public protests or gatherings that require permits, there is a variety of taxes and fees on all form of telecommunications (including the publishing of stuff on the internet), so yes, free speech can also be taxed.

Another reminder: There is sales tax on certain publications. I forget the details (they are, as usual, overly complicated), but I think daily newspapers are taxed, while monthly magazines are not. Or the other way around, I forget.

A TAX was required to attend the religious services of your choice...?

On the contrary, our government, both federal and state, has always seen fit to financially support religion, for example by exempting it from a lot of taxes, such as property tax. Whether that is better or worse than taxing religion is in the eye of the beholder.

The only thing we know for sure is that poll taxes (a tax required to vote) are unconstitutional. But we should not jump to conclusions by false analogies.

[CALI-gula]

Injunction or the process of it thereof will be filed within hours of stores opening on Monday.

.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Sorry, but voting on details of "how government works", such as taxes, is not a constitutional right.

It is actually the very essence of why we vote at all and voting is a Constitutional right. It comes down to the expression: 'the consent of the governed.'

Did I say anywhere that I am happy that it is not on the ballot? Because I'm not satisfied with it being removed from the ballot.

Did you notice the quote marks or were you more focused on 'winning the debate?' Did I say 'happy?' No? Did I place quote marks around 'satisfied?' Yes.

The reason? You are arguing against the very rationale of what our Government is supposed to be; i.e., responsive to We the People. Put another way, you are arguing that process, whatever that process is, trumps what We the People want.

In a sense, you're not entirely wrong. In another sense, you are 'limiting' how We the People can respond, to the point of nearly declaring, in effect, that we can't unless the Government permits us to. Such seems to be the direct opposite of what it is supposed to be. Even you seem to acknowledge that...

Do I think that prop 47 is a good idea? No, as proposed it is a horrible idea. I think it is unworkable, and also goes against the important principle of our country (and state) being a representative republic. The US is not Switzerland, and California is not Appenzell-Innerrhoden: one of the last places that has no legislature, but the assembly of all voters *IS* the legislative body. For those reasons, it should be rejected, but it ought to be rejected by the voters.

However, the movement behind prop 47 raises an important point: The way taxation (including fees and hidden taxes, such as CARB fees and DMV weight taxes) works is insanely complex, which has led to our taxes being the highest in the nation. A small fraction of the taxes are determined by the voters, but the bulk are not. This is already insane: spend millions to print ballots and campaign to let the voters decide on dozens or hundreds of $ each, while the average voter has to pay thousands or tens of thousands that only the legislature controls. And even for direct democracy, the rules are insane. For example, school taxes require 50%, 55% or 66.7% to pass, and which one it is seems to depend on whether the moon is in aquarius on election day. Seriously, look up sometime why some school parcel taxes only require a 50% majority: only nuts, fruits and flakes (i.e., Californians) could have come up with such nonsense. And then our tax system is one of the most unfair and uneven of them all. The casus belli here is prop 13: the amount of property tax can easily vary by a factor of 5 or 10 between neighbors with similar houses, and in general individual residences have a much higher effective tax rate than commercial properties. Some people consider this to be a great and just thing (because their constituency pays little), others consider this to be terrible and unjust (for the opposite reason), and both sides are wrong: the problem is that the tax structure is unfair. Prop 47 has the potential to become "the coming of the great white handkerchief", and force our state to put some common sense into our tax structure.

Which to my way of viewing it, is precisely what the ballot measure was intended to achieve or, at the very least, it was intended to introduce a brake pedal on what it has become in California.

I disagree. In our system, the courts are the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality. Yes, court decisions are regularly overruled by either legislatures, or by referendum. But those acts of overruling are themselves subject to the power of the courts. One example is prop 8: while the people of California declared that same-sex marriage is illegal, a court later told them that they are wrong. The counter-example is Anderson: the state Supreme Court said that the death penalty is cruel and/or unusual; the voters disagreed and by referendum reinstated it. But even that example works within the framework of the courts having the ultimate powerthe court voluntarily accepted being overridden, even expressing its regrets in the Frierson decision).

The ultimate way the people have to override a final determination by the courts would be a revolution, and putting a new system into place. But much more practically and easily, they can also elect new representatives, who can then change the laws or the constitution, thereby forcing the court's hand. I repeat: that is the correct process for the people to deal with court decisions they don't like. There is no constitutional right for a proposition or referendum to be the ultima ratio, in neither this country nor this state.

No, they aren't. The People are.

The 'nuclear option' is, ultimately, the only way We the People have to override the courts? Uh... Nope. Again, you're only 'viable' solution is to elect new people. And... again... That is one option, not the only option short of the nuclear option. Likewise, saying that the court 'voluntarily accepted being overridden' is... misleading. Remember, the courts have few, actual enforcement mechanisms. It's the Executive and Legislative Branches which enforce Judicial decisions, for the most part. Thus, if pressure is placed on the former two branches, whatever the Judiciary's policy, their ability to enforce it is hindered. It's all part of checks and balances. (That's without getting into what just happened with security guards and the homes of SCOTUS Justices.)

It may take time, as it did with Roe v. Wade. It may demand a little 'Irish Democracy' much the way DeSantis is alluding to... and . (Before you say that 'it's legal,' bear in mind that we don't know how voters in Florida actually feel and that the measures to be meted out by the Federal Government based on the Surgeon General's actions are only working their way to the on deck circle.) Likewise, even the media is acknowledging a certain lack of ideological hegemony on SCOTUS and that 'mix' is likely to change in the not-so-distant future, meaning we could end up with a whole new paradigm to play under.

It's not about 'the process is the ultimate arbiter.' It's about how that process is enforced... Which is why we have the current furor over things like Jan. 6, COVID, the 2024 Election, etc.

The process is what we are supposed to play by. But, what happens when the People don't agree with or to the process? Will there be a modern-day Dwight Eisenhower enforcing the equivalent of Brown v. Board of Education or will it be Eisenhower using his public support to erode or soften the decision's impact?

I tend to be a stickler for playing by the rules. However, there is something once said on Law & Ordernote his background to see where that comes from.

The System the Founders gave us is more than what is written on a piece of paper and it has 'evolved' into an highly complex set of rules, processes, and players. As much as I prefer a 'black & white' world, even I acknowledge that's not how the World actually works.

?

?

[MountainLion]

At the core of our disagreement is that we have a fundamentally different view of the process. Through my upbringing, I believe in working within the system. If the constitution says that we elect parliaments, then let's do it. Let's use that to our advantage, to obtain the maximum benefit to our cause (whatever the cause may be, different from person to person and from day to day). The constitution does not say that we approve every change in the tax code by a 2/3 majority. But we could change the constitution. Prop 47 tried to achieve just that, but it went "off the reservation" when it picked a mechanism that doesn't work the way the proponents hoped. What does "doesn't work the way" mean? Again, the interpretation of black letter is what the courts do and are supposed to do. Don't like that fact? Either replace the courts (which is done indirectly, usually by electing whoever nominates and confirms judges, but sometimes directly), or replace the whole system of government, or go to a place with a system of government one enjoys more. Or find a way around the roadblock. Ultimately, the citizens are the sovereign, so they do control the process. But changing the process is slow, because even when changing the process, you have to obey the current process.

You are of the view that the process is something that (while it must be honored) can be worked around much more flexibly. De Santis is a great example: Dance right at the edge of what is allowed, often being one step outside the rules. But the good news is: he can go to the edge of the rules, because he has little or no respect for process and rules. He has to be careful to not end up like a whole slew of Illinois governors though.

Just as an example of how my viewpoint actually works, albeit slowly: For several years I've been saying that Chevron was decided wrong, yet the court won't blanket overturn it, because the effects would be too massive. I was hoping the courts (both lower level and supreme) would nibble away at the edge of it, until either none of it is left, or until it is the right shape. I believe that the power to set agency marching orders should rest with the legislature, as it is somewhat more directly connected to the voters than agencies (which are 1 or 2 steps further away). Well, I was wrong, and I officially eat crow: Chevron turned into smoke this morning. This happened within the system, without any ignoring of the law, without violence, without revolution, and most importantly without being retroactive. Matter-of-fact, the court explicitly said that old decisions under Chevron remain valid, and stare decisis applies to them.

But the fascinating thing is what Roberts replace it with. He didn't say that agencies do not have the executive power to do whatever they want if the law they operate under is broad or ambiguous. He only changed who gets to make the decision how broad they are: under Chevron it used to be the agency itself, under the new regime it is the courts. I don't like that answer, but in the US tradition, it is uncommon for the courts to throw questions back at parliaments. The important part is: the system changed itself, within the system.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

At the core of our disagreement is that we have a fundamentally different view of the process. Through my upbringing, I believe in working within the system. If the constitution says that we elect parliaments, then let's do it. Let's use that to our advantage, to obtain the maximum benefit to our cause (whatever the cause may be, different from person to person and from day to day). The constitution does not say that we approve every change in the tax code by a 2/3 majority. But we could change the constitution. Prop 47 tried to achieve just that, but it went "off the reservation" when it picked a mechanism that doesn't work the way the proponents hoped. What does "doesn't work the way" mean? Again, the interpretation of black letter is what the courts do and are supposed to do. Don't like that fact? Either replace the courts (which is done indirectly, usually by electing whoever nominates and confirms judges, but sometimes directly), or replace the whole system of government, or go to a place with a system of government one enjoys more. Or find a way around the roadblock. Ultimately, the citizens are the sovereign, so they do control the process. But changing the process is slow, because even when changing the process, you have to obey the current process.

You are of the view that the process is something that (while it must be honored) can be worked around much more flexibly. De Santis is a great example: Dance right at the edge of what is allowed, often being one step outside the rules. But the good news is: he can go to the edge of the rules, because he has little or no respect for process and rules. He has to be careful to not end up like a whole slew of Illinois governors though.

Just as an example of how my viewpoint actually works, albeit slowly: For several years I've been saying that Chevron was decided wrong, yet the court won't blanket overturn it, because the effects would be too massive. I was hoping the courts (both lower level and supreme) would nibble away at the edge of it, until either none of it is left, or until it is the right shape. I believe that the power to set agency marching orders should rest with the legislature, as it is somewhat more directly connected to the voters than agencies (which are 1 or 2 steps further away). Well, I was wrong, and I officially eat crow: Chevron turned into smoke this morning. This happened within the system, without any ignoring of the law, without violence, without revolution, and most importantly without being retroactive. Matter-of-fact, the court explicitly said that old decisions under Chevron remain valid, and stare decisis applies to them.

But the fascinating thing is what Roberts replace it with. He didn't say that agencies do not have the executive power to do whatever they want if the law they operate under is broad or ambiguous. He only changed who gets to make the decision how broad they are: under Chevron it used to be the agency itself, under the new regime it is the courts. I don't like that answer, but in the US tradition, it is uncommon for the courts to throw questions back at parliaments. The important part is: the system changed itself, within the system.

As I said, I'm known as someone who is a 'stickler' for playing by the rules. However, bear in mind that the Constitution is deliberately a bit ambiguous; i.e., not everything is laid out in exquisite detail the way you claim it to be. In many ways, it's largely a matter of interpretation and Chevron Deference actually provides an exemplar of that. One incarnation of SCOTUS felt it to be Constitutional, another incarnation has found it not to be. Why? Because of how it has been abused.

You see, nothing is permanently set in stone when it comes to the Constitution. It has an inherent flexibility and necessarily so. It is simultaneously the document's greatest strength and greatest weakness. It's why it's been said for a longOur constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.under Chevron it used to be the agency itself, under the new regime it is the courts." The Left has made the same type of claim vis a vis abortion. It's also attempted to market such a perception in terms of guns; from Heller to bump stocks. The problem is, that's not what SCOTUS has actually done. It didn't 'used to be the agency.' Prior to Chevron, things were similar to what we have at the moment. Prior to Roe v. Wade, things were similar to what we have now. Prior to a whole lot of nefarious machinations, guns were viewed differently as well.

What SCOTUS has done and is doing is resetting the playing field so that a new 'balance point' can be established. In one sense, it is the System changing itself within the System. But, you have to take a broad view of what the System actually is and that is... the People. That is, fundamentally, at the core of what many of these changes are about. Just like abortion, let the People of the individual states decide. Why? Because the decision which was made in Roe wasn't based on a sound consensus or principles of Law. It was based on agenda. So... reset.

This is precisely what you are describing when you say the fascinating thing is what Roberts replace it with in that Chevron Deference actually usurped the Constitutional duty of the Judiciary to resolve ambiguities, assigning it, instead, to Executive Branch agencies. Was there a 'need' to do so? Yes. Has it been taken 'too far?' Yes. What has SCOTUS done in response? Reset. Put another way, what SCOTUS has done is return to the Judiciary its Constitutional role, which includes throwing things back on the Legislature in terms of making its intent clear so that the Judiciary or individual agencies or the People don't have to 'guess' as to the meaning of what is passed.

That's what Heller represented in many respects. It wasn't a 'fundamental change' in the way the 2nd Amendment was understood the way the Left claims. It was a 'reset' to how it has always been understood. That is what Bruen was attempting to do as well. Now, what is occurring is that a new 'balance point' is being established. It won't be where 'the original' was and it won't be where it has been.

That is why this iteration of SCOTUS 'scares' people. It's creating changes; i.e., resetting the 'balance point.' That begets uncertainty in what, for many, is uncertain times and, frankly, there appears to be little certainty associated with how the Justices appear to be ruling or conducting themselves. (How often did SCOTUS Justices used to publicly express their personal opinions on this or that issue?)

This 'uncertainty' is the very thing which prompts you to claim that DeSantis has little or no respect for process and rules. It is actually respect for the process and rules which keeps him from going hog wild. But, he does represent a bit of an 'extreme.' The danger is when an 'extreme' does show little or no respect for the process and rules, such as what is occurring in California. The Left has been playing by an entirely different process and, if you want to refer to it as such, 'set of rules.' As a result, we see the chaos which has and continues to emerge for society and the People are beginning to push back.

To my way of thinking, this is what the ballot measure was all about in regard to Prop 47. It was about pushing back. The Constitution doesn't say every tax measure has to be decided by a 2/3 vote. But, it also doesn't say that it can't be? So... What is the process? That is the question which the State Supreme Court ruling raised; i.e., were the People denied a legitimate process due, not to the 'letter of the law,' but to political preference? Simply saying it doesn't adhere to the 'letter of the law' misses the point. Was it the actual intent of the Law? Was it the actual 'letter of the Law?' Or, was it a 'convenient' interpretation of the Law which favored the Government and not the People?

It's why I referred to 'Irish Democracy' in that whatever the 'letter of the Law,' if the People don't obey it, does it actually have meaning?

It all goes back to the old 'Chinese proverb' of: "May you live in interesting times."

[Librarian]

Lawsuit filed; see https://www.calguns.net/forum/politi...ax-july-2-2024

[Qwertius]

Subscribe to keep updated.

[Quiet]

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.

The 11% tax only applies to retail sales within CA and it only applies to a CA FFL dealer, CA firearm manufacturer, and CA ammunition vendor. [RTC 36011]

Out-of-state ammunition vendors are not required to collect/charge this tax because they do not meet the CA legal definition of an "ammunition vendor" [FTC 36001(a) and PC 16151] and because the sale does not occur within CA [RTC 36011].

If an out-of-state vendor sells ammunition and it is shipped to a CA FFL dealer or CA DOJ licensed ammunition vendor, then that CA FFL dealer or CA DOJ licensed ammunition vendor will collect the 11% tax because the retail sale occurred within CA. [RTC 6007(a)(2)]

If an out-of-state vendor sells ammunition and it is shipped directly to an exempt person, then no 11% tax is required because the retail sale did not occur in CA and the person receiving the ammunition is not a CA FFL dealer or CA DOJ licensed ammunition vendor. [RTC 36011]

There are no CA laws that mandates an out-of-state vendor, that sell ammunition to an exempt person in CA, to ship that ammunition to a CA FFL dealer or CA DOJ licensed ammunition vendor, so that the 11% tax can be collected.

Also note that the SCOTUS ruling, South Dakota v Wayfair (2018), only applies to sales tax and does not apply to any other type of State tax.
^This is why online vendors charge CA sales tax for items sold/ship to CA.



Revenue and Taxation Code 36011
Commencing July 1, 2024, an excise tax is hereby imposed upon licensed firearms dealers, firearms manufacturers, and ammunition vendors, at the rate of 11 percent of the gross receipts from the retail sale in this state of any firearm, firearm precursor part, or ammunition.

Revenue and Taxation Code 36001Revenue and Taxation Code 6007

[michaelh1951]

I'm trying to figure out whether the tax applies to used guns, particularly to PPT and consignments. Anyone know?

[Preston-CLB]

I'm trying to figure out whether the tax applies to used guns, particularly to PPT and consignments. Anyone know?

On consignment: Yes
PPT: No

New or used does not matter.

See this thread for greater detail as to how the law affects us.
-P

[psun786]

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.

I hate to break it to you. This is called tax evasion ??