California Dems Want to Impose 11% Tax on Gun and Ammo Sale

I love the assemblycreature’s rationale… that they tax cannabis at a higher rate than 11% so the peasant gun owners should shut up and thank them that they’re so kind as to only want to tax guns at 11% (for now).

These creatures consistently try to equate guns (something that is Constitutionally protected) with other items that are not Constitutionally protected and that are not an apples-to-apples comparison.
 
bdickens said:
Why don't they impose an income tax on the proceeds from theft, robbery and drug deals?
Click to expand...
The Democrats want to punish the vast majority of gun users who are not thieves, robbers, or drug dealers.
The tactical equivalent of the gun and ammo tax would be a video equipment and recording media tax to punish everyone video recording because child pornography and snuff films.
 
Carl N. Brown said:
The Democrats want to punish the vast majority of gun users who are not thieves, robbers, or drug dealers.
The tactical equivalent of the gun and ammo tax would be a video equipment and recording media tax to punish everyone video recording because child pornography and snuff films.
Click to expand...

That was a rhetorical question.
 
It is California, so it has a very good chance of passing and being upheld by appellate courts. Seattle imposed a $25 tax on every firearm and 5 cent tax on every round sold to "curb gun violence." It did exactly what anyone with a brain here expects it would: drove up violence committed with a gun, reduced the number of legal gun owners, and drove business outside the city limits to avoid paying additional taxes on goods they move the most. The extra tax was upheld by the WA state Supreme Court in 2017.

https://komonews.com/news/local/state-supreme-court-upholds-seattles-controversial-gun-tax
 
theotherwaldo said:
Is there a tax that the California legislature doesn't like?
-Asking for a friend.
Click to expand...
Apparently not.

When CA experienced $97.5 billion surplus fund last year, there was talk of rolling back some taxes like the fifty cent per gallon gas tax - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-13/california-governor-sees-record-97-5-billion-operating-surplus?leadSource=uverify wall

But in the end, no ... No taxes were rolled back and all the endless taxes remained.

And Governor Newsom and law corrupters in Sacramento are devising more taxes to impose on us. Yay.
 
It sounds like we should be getting $100k after refuting all these stupid gun control ideas they keep thinking up!
 
alfsauve said:
Would it apply to LEO purchases? Oh yeah, some animals are more equal……
Click to expand...
Actually, LEO agencies do pay state/local sales tax on ammo purchases but the FET is waived. With the anti LE sentiment running deep, I will not be surprised if that proposed tax carry’s over to agency purchases, too. (I ordered the ammo for my former agency from 2008-2022, jumped through ALL the hoops here when it comes to that process.)

Stay safe.
 
It’s sad how this State will add utility fees, surcharges and taxes on a person making XX amount of money just to turn around and subsidize the purchase of the utility by a person making YY amount of money, all in the name of “equity”.

So, is there a provision where the proposed tax will be subsidized by the State to help those less fortunate gain “relief” from this burdensome tax on a constitutionally protected right?

If not, I will argue this tax is rooted in racism. Since only the wealthy can now afford to buy, like so many other gun control laws this one is clearly intended to keep “those people” from purchasing firearms or ammo. :thumbdown:

Sometimes the tables need to be turned in the argument against those who Intend to control you.

Stay safe.
 
Do California’s various wishes still manage to surprise people?

They would prefer one day to ban all gun sales if possible.

None of their Anti-US Constitution ideas should ever be a surprise.

Such strategies can last decades.
But this isn’t a problem for them- as long as they achieve their ultimate goal.

Ho Chi Minh literally spent decades to achieve his objective.
 
Last edited:
Will some one please explain to me how a tax can just be put on some thing. You want people to stop smoking, Raise the tax on smokes. You want people to drive less raise the tax on gas, ect, ect. It never seems to stop. Wasn't one of the reasons we fought a war was because of taxes. How can raiseing taxes be leguel, just because some people are against some thing and they want to put a tax on it. What happen to Taxasion without Reperesention.
 
Seems to be not much.
A maven said recently that taxes were originally meant to fund necessary government operations.
Now we get unnecessary government boondoggles, transfer of wealth to the more deserving, and economic disincentives to shape our behavior.
 
0ne3 said:
Will some one please explain to me how a tax can just be put on some thing.
Click to expand...
Sure.

Here in CA where one party controls the assembly, senate and governor's desk; bills are introduced and passed without much resistance and signed into law like no internal combustion engine cars sold by 2035 even though state lacks the electrical grid infrastructure to support current electrical usage.

Mob mjaority rule can be "efficient" in imposing on rights/liberties of the minority, like those of gun owners. ;)

Thank goodness the founders realized this and separated federal government powers into three branches so imposition by mob majority on rights of minority could be over ruled by the judicial branch if legislative/executive branches so choose. :neener:
 
0ne3 said:
Wasn't one of the reasons we fought a war was because of taxes. ......What happened to Taxation without Representation?
Click to expand...
The slogan in the Revolution was "no taxation without representation." The colonists' complaint was that taxes were being imposed from outside (from Britain), and that the colonists didn't have representation in the British parliament.

That complaint now doesn't apply, since we have representation (Congress and the state legislatures).

Excise taxes on specific products are as old as the Republic. The first such tax, on whiskey, resulted in the Whiskey Rebellion (1791-94). This was put down when George Washington himself (then President) put on his uniform and took the field as the commander. (BTW, Washington distilled liquor on his plantation. His still can be seen on display at Mt. Vernon. Presumably he had no problem paying the whiskey tax.)

The issue is not whether California can put an excise tax on guns, but whether the amount of such a tax is prohibitory of a constitutionally-protected right (the RKBA). There is no constitutional right to drink whiskey, or to smoke, but there is a constitutional right to own guns.

The exact amount that is permissible has yet to be determined by the courts.
 
KyJim said:
I would think it would be whatever the regular sales tax is in California
Click to expand...
Here's where it gets tricky. The California regular sales tax would still apply to gun sales, so if this new excise tax was at the same rate, it would represent a doubling of the total tax.

They're also comparing this proposed California excise tax to the federal 10% - 11% excise tax on guns. But the federal tax is imposed at the manufacturer level, and is thus invisible to the consumer. (To the consumer, it's part of the underlying cost of the item.) The California tax would be highly visible -- in fact one of its purposes is to discourage gun sales. This creates a perception of taxing a right.

There's a very good chance that this tax, if enacted, will get overthrown by the courts. The precedent would be the poll tax ("head tax"), which was held to be an unconstitutional tax on the right to vote (if paying the poll tax was a requirement to vote).

Now, if California had a voluntary program where gun buyers were asked to chip in 11% for gun safety initiatives (but could decline to do so), that would be a different story. (For example, if you contributed to the program, you would get a voucher for the amount contributed, that you could use for your next purchase of a gun safe. I would bet that many gun buyers would support this idea.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Twiki357
  • Locked
Calif. special 10% additional sales tax on ammo
2
Replies
48
Views
3K
Zoogster
Z
12Bravo20
California gun and ammo tax
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
caribou
caribou
G
  • Locked
Extra taxation on guns and ammo proposed in House
Replies
8
Views
1K
Al Thompson
A
P
  • Locked
Sales tax for FTF?
Replies
14
Views
1K
TaxPhd
T
W
  • Locked
Federal excise tax on guns: double dipping?
Replies
3
Views
446
Robert
Robert
Back
Top