Cali 10 cent ammo tax update

Status
Not open for further replies.
railroader

railroader

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
1,880
Location
az
They added a few changes. I think they changed the name and also added if you try to buy ammo out of state that the fee also applies to that ammo for usage and storage. How are they going to tax you for out of state purchases? This whole bill is a load of crap.
BILL TEXT: AB 992

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 5, 2003
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 22, 2003

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Members Ridley-Thomas and Koretz
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Goldberg and Nunez)
(Coauthor: Senator Soto)

FEBRUARY 20, 2003

An act to add Chapter 2.8 (commencing with Section 12330) to Title
2 of Part 4 of the Penal Code, relating to ammunition, and making an
appropriation therefor.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 992, as amended, Ridley-Thomas. Ammunition: Trauma
Center Firearm Victims' Reimbursement Fund.
Existing law generally regulates the sale of ammunition.
This bill would impose a fee of 10
on every munition, as defined, sold at retail. The fees would be
paid to the State Board of Equalization, and deposited in the Firearm
Injuries Medical Services Victims'
Reimbursement Fund, a continuously appropriated fund that would be
established by the bill. The Firearm Injuries Medical
Services Victims' Reimbursement Fund would be
used to pay for firearm-injury related
medical and preventative services programs victims for
uncompensated pecuniary losses , as specified. The
funds in the Firearm Injuries Medical Services Reimbursement Fund
would be allocated by the Emergency Medical Services Authority to the
medical providers by a specified formula. A By
establishing a continuously appropriated fund, this bill would make
an appropriation.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: yes. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Chapter 2.8 (commencing with Section 12330) is added to
Title 2 of Part 4 of the Penal Code, to read:

CHAPTER 2.8. FIREARMS-RELATED EMERGENCY SERVICES
REIMBURSEMENT FIREARM VICTIMS' REIMBURSEMENT FUND

12330. (a) (1) There shall be imposed a fee upon all munitions
sold at retail at the rate of 10 cents ($0.10) for each munition sold
at retail in this state on or after January 1, 2004.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (1), the fee shall also be
imposed upon and paid by the purchaser of munitions for munitions
purchased outside of the state and that are intended to be stored or
used in the state.
(3) The fee imposed pursuant to this section shall not exceed the
costs authorized for expenditure pursuant to subdivisions (f) and
(g).
(b) The fees imposed by this section shall be administered and
enforced by the State Board of Equalization.
(c) For purposes of this section, "munition" means either a
finished munition product consisting of a projectile with its fuse,
propelling charge, or primer, or a primer component, as applicable.
"Munition" does not include a BB or a pellet commonly used in an air
rifle or pistol.
(d) The fee provided for in this section may not be imposed upon
any munition or primer component purchased by any peace officer
required to carry a firearm while on duty, or by any governmental law
enforcement agency employing that officer, for use in the normal
course of employment.
(e) All amounts required to be paid to the state under this
section shall be paid to the State Board of Equalization in the form
of remittances that are payable to that board and are separate from
the remittance of any other fee. The board shall transmit the
payments to the Treasurer to be deposited in the State Treasury to
the credit of the Firearm Injuries Medical Services
Victims' Reimbursement Fund, which is hereby
created.
(f) Notwithstanding Section 13340 of the Government Code, the
Firearm Injuries Medical Services Victims'
Reimbursement Fund is continuously appropriated, without regard
to fiscal years, as follows:
(1) To the State Board of Equalization the to pay for the board's
cost of implementation and administration of this section, which
cost in any fiscal year may not exceed 5 percent of the total amount
of moneys deposited in the fund in that fiscal year.
(2) The balance to the Emergency Medical Services Authority
(EMSA). EMSA may expend an amount not to exceed 5 percent of the
total amount of moneys received from the board in any fiscal year to
pay for cost of implementation and administration of this section.
(g) Claims for the uncompensated costs of firearms injuries shall
be submitted to EMSA. EMSA is authorized to expend money from the
Firearm Injuries Medical Services Reimbursement Fund to provide
direct payments, on a quarterly basis, for firearm-injury related
medical and preventive program services, as defined by EMSA for
claims made to EMSA for reimbursement. Reimbursement shall be made
in descending order of priority for the following three tiers. No
payment shall be made to claimants in a lower tier unless all claims
in a tier with higher priority have been satisfied.
(1) Tier 1 shall have the highest priority for reimbursement, and
shall consist of physicians, surgeons, and hospitals. Reimbursement
may be made for the uncompensated cost of serving patients who do not
make full payment for services and for whom no responsible third
party makes full payment. Reimbursement may also be made for the
uncompensated costs of programs to prevent gunshot injuries.
(2) Tier 2 shall have the next level of reimbursement priority,
and shall consist of other medical service providers, as determined
by EMSA, for the uncompensated cost of serving patients who do not
make full payment for services and for whom no responsible third
party makes full payment.
(3) Tier 3 shall have the next level of reimbursement priority,
and shall consist of other medical insurance programs administered by
the state. Reimbursement shall be in an amount proportionate to the
program's funding form non-federal sources, for the uncompensated
cost of serving patients who do not make full payment for services
and for whom no responsible third party makes full payment.
(h) If EMSA determines that the claims for payment for firearm
injuries-related medical services, if paid, would exceed the total
amount of funds available for payments, EMSA shall fairly prorate,
without preference, except for the priority of tiers set forth in
subdivision (g), payments to each claimant at an amount less that the
maximum payment level.
(i) Claimants shall reimburse the Firearm Injuries Medical
Services Reimbursement Fund for any reimbursement for firearm
injuries costs that is later paid from some other source.
(j)
(2) The fund shall be administered by the California Victims
Compensation and Government Claims Board in a similar manner and for
similar purposes as the board administers the Restitution Fund except
that it shall not be limited to victims of crime.
(3) The fund shall compensate those persons who are injured by
firearms and who suffer uncompensated pecuniary loss.
(g) If the amount credited to the Firearm Injuries
Medical Services Victims' Reimbursement Fund
exceeds the amount necessary to fully cover reimbursable costs
pursuant to subdivision (g) (f) , the
State Board of Equalization shall temporarily adjust, for the
following one-year period, the fee to be charged pursuant to
subdivision (a) to an amount estimated to deplete any surplus in the
fund during the next calendar year.
(k)
(h) Except as provided in subdivision (j)
(g) , the fee imposed pursuant to subdivision (a) shall
be increased by one cent every two years, commencing January 1, 2006,
provided however, that fee imposed pursuant to this section shall
not exceed the costs authorized for expenditure pursuant to
subdivisions (f) and (g) subdivision (f) .

(l)
(i) The Board of Equalization and the Emergency
Medical Services Authority California Victims
Compensation and Government Claims Board shall adopt
regulations necessary to implement this chapter.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Well this change stinks to high heaven. I think there is actually a way they could collect for (or block) out of state sales. Certain items cannot now be sold to CA residents. You can't buy a pair of snakeskin boots or mailorder them in CA for example, but you can buy them in person in Texas and just bring them back home with you. It's no one's business if you got them before or after the ban. If this "fee" is enacted, I think we would see the same thing with ammo and components. Either the seller would state in their catalog that CA purchases will include the extra fee to be sent to the state, or more likely, the seller will just stop selling components to CA residents to avoid the hassle.

Normally I wouldn't give this much chance of passing, but with the state budget crisis, shooters are an easy target to gouge money from. Lucky for me I go fishing near the Nevada border a couple of times a year. ;)
 
I see two things happening.

1) A booming business for OR, NV and AZ gun shops within 25 miles of the KA border.

2) KA DOJ agents doing stakeouts at these shops like some states do at liquor and tobacco stores to catch gunowners bringing their purchases in from out-of-state.
 
It actually sounds like they want to create a nice black market for bootlegging.

You can ban anything..Somebody will think of a way to get around it.

But that tax needs to be stopped or it'll be the battle cry across the nation.

Just my 2 cents.

:cool: :cool:
 
What happened to the $.05/round proposed tax?

How will they collect this tax on the rounds that are in a firearm when it is stolen? Will the perp also be charged with tax evasion when he is busted?

What happens when a propretor with a CA resale card (tax exempt for resale) buys ammo and sells it to a consumer who is located outside of the state?

I guess the cost of the revolution just went up.
 
IIRC, the first $.05 tax fell flat on its face, and that is somewhat of an understatement.

I dunno how they think they're gonna pass double the tax this time, but whatever... :rolleyes:
 
My sympathies to the regular law abiding citizens of the People's Republic of California. You are truely saddled with socialist statists.

My only question is Why do you put up with this crap? VOTE THOSE IDIOTS OUT OF OFFICE. :banghead:
 
My only question is Why do you put up with this crap? VOTE THOSE IDIOTS OUT OF OFFICE.
Click to expand...

Economic warfare is being waged against the United States, and the lands under siege are the border states, California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. The shock troops of this invasion is unlimited, illegal immigration.

In spite of a budget deficit of gigantic proportions, the liberal Democrat majority in the legislature is determined to keep up the free lunch programs for masses which are increasing in gigantic numbers every day. The people who benefit from these free lunch programs don't pay the taxes, but they are being encouraged to register to vote to keep the Democrat majority in power. The Democrat majority will leave no stone unturned to find sources of new revenue.

Even though the budget deficit has been increasing since the 2002 election, the legislature and the governor have shirked from their responsibiltity to do something to get it under control. There have been some budget cuts, but borrowing seems to be the favored plan. Perhaps $11 billion will be borrowed to be paid back over the next five years. The governor is entertaining a state agency that will automatically have the power to increase the sales tax every time more money is borrowed to make ends meet.

I'm leaving the workers' paradise as quick as I can. I know what is coming and it won't be pretty. There is going to be a big tax increase jammed down Californians' throats and there will be talk of they all have to make sacrifices. Californians will be softened up to accept it by massive cuts in essential services at the customer level, but no reductions in management and administration at the top.

The PDRK will be a fun place to watch. I plan to do it from another state.
 
As a follow on to my comments about economic war in the PDRK, I just listened on the radio to a Democratic plan in the legislature to increase the fee to renew one's drivers license from $15 to $45 if the driver renews his or her license in person at DMV.

Currently, if you have a clean drivers record for two years, you can renew by mail. Just send money. The Democrats also want to increase that requirement to four years in order to renew by mail. They say it is a safety measure. Yeah, right.
 
Natedog,
This is where it gets worse, you can kick your reloader into the trash! Under this crap they will tax each component primer, brass and bullet. So that would be .30 cent's on top of what you figure it costs per each round to load.
 
Throw your .22 away. you won't be able to afford to shoot it anymore. This tax would add $55 to a 550 round brick of .22lr. Actually don't throw your .22 away recycle it. Yeah, that's it. Or just take it with you when you move away from that downward spiraling socialist cesspool.
 
You know what this will do? It will spawn a new category in the ever-growing black market. Bad guys can't afford ammo as it is. They sure as hell aren't going to be paying even more for it. Once again, the law-abiding citizen takes it in the...

GT
 
IIRC, the first $.05 tax fell flat on its face, and that is somewhat of an understatement.

I dunno how they think they're gonna pass double the tax this time, but whatever...
Click to expand...
They changed what they're calling it. By calling it a fee, they only need a simple majority to pass it, not 2/3.
 
Of course trying to use logic on any Democrat plan is a
waste of time.
As we all know,drugs have been illegal for quite some time.
There are certain parts in most cities, as in mine,where one
can buy whatever one wants.In fact I'm sure I could leave here
and be back in a hour with some "contraband".
The point being as was stated earlier,all they are creating is
a black market.Look how well the gov. is doing keeping
drugs,aliens etc. out of the state!
What a farce!
The time is near.

QuickDraw
 
They just figure that shooters have deep pockets. Besides, since its such an un-PC hobby, they can probably get approval for it from the uninformed masses much less some career happy politician. We are so used to getting kicked around anyway they can just assume we will pay. Just look at what we will pay for something with which to launch those bullets. The poli-crats figure they gotta hop on the money train of our gunnut "disposable income."

Then, on to the next most un-PC activity to follow the money....

Liberalism is a social infection.
 
Did you notice that none of the POLICE will have to pay this tax? That's a fair "sales tax", isn't it? Usually, sales taxes are paid by everyone at time of retail purchase period. But now we see they aren't really "sales taxes" at all. They're tools of harrassment, like every-increasing tobacco taxes. And also a method of back-door banning and restricting things they've tried other means to ban or restrict but were not successful.
 
Making this a tax (as it truly is) rather than a "fee" (which is a fraud) makes the hurdle for passing it much higher. If it didn't pass at a nickel a bullet last year, why would it pass at .10 per this year (other than we're dealing with a bunch of corrupt politicians)? It just makes me so angry that we have to keep fighting these greedy jerks.
 
In the actual text of the bill it is still a fee. The name of the bill was changed into "Firearm Victims' Reimbursement Fund" and the proceeds would no longer be used for medical treatment.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0951-1000/ab_992_bill_20030505_amended_asm.html

Which brings up a side point: SB992's twin brother, SB602 is still alive, albeit dormant. If everything goes their way, the dems/grabbers might score a 20 cents "fee": 10 for Trauma Center Fund and 10 for Firearm Victims' Reimbursement Fund.
:cuss:
 
Contrarian viewpoint: Part of me hopes the bill passes. In fact, better that they raise the the tax to $.20, or even $1 per bullet. Here's my rationale: As some have pointed out, legal retail sales of ammo will simply stop, to be replaced by grey market sales. Now, I feel badly that some folks will get trapped by "sting" operations, buying grey market ammo from undercover cops. Aside from that, the bill is ultimately UNENFORCEABLE. How in God's name will "pre-ban" ammo be distinguished from "post-ban" ammo? Serial numbers on bullets? Date codes on ammo boxes?

So, the new fashion is everyone carrying their (pre-ban?) ammo in unmarked plastic bins...or shooters recycling the same tax receipt for their 200-500 rounds that they plan to shoot at the range that day, if asked to show proof of legality. Numerous other work-arounds will make the bill impossible to enforce. I think I read that the bill had a 5% cap on administative costs. Does this include enforcement? Whoopee...5% of some ridiculously small revenue stream, to be distributed to all the le agencies to take part in some state-wide dragnet for illegal ammo bootleggers?

Economically, the bill will fail. It's simply unworkable. Part of me enjoys watching liberal grabbers expend a lot of energy passing nonsense legislation, that encourages more people to become more radical in their response to these measures. If that hastens some kind of showdown (over gun control in general), is that a bad thing?
 
Cali THR members.
I have read this and other troubling threads about your State.
My heart goes out to you.
Just reading this stuff with the old saw "Cali leads the nation by a few years" in the baak of my mind, just makes my stress for you (and maybe the rest of us) go right off scale.

I hope this does not pass. There has to be something on the order of a voting booth revolt of epic proportions to get the people that want to do this stuff out of office.
Fingers crossed on all accounts.

S-
 
Yes, we know that you're happy you left California, and that you don't miss it. You don't miss an opportunity to tell us that. Thank you. Now, those of us who are still here will continue to fight the corruption. And it will probably take a little more than an extra day to get 2/3 vote to pass an ammo tax rather than a fee. 2/3 is a pretty high hurdle, even in vermin-ridden pestilent California. :scrutiny:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Defending against violent crime - reimbursement
Replies
7
Views
583
The Tourist
T
J
  • Locked
HR 1105 : Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009
Replies
0
Views
327
John Q. Pirate
J
Dudedog
  • Locked
California AB2382 More bad news if it passes
Replies
1
Views
846
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
B
  • Locked
for Pax, Legal Jeopardy.
Replies
2
Views
464
pax
P
2
  • Locked
Ammo To Cali
Replies
7
Views
708
Quiet
Q
Back
Top