"Sin tax" on guns & ammo in CA

**44 AMP** · December 29, 2023, 05:27 PM

California is going to be putting an 11% tax on guns and ammo.

They claim its modeled after the Federal Tax, but the only thing is has in common with the Federal tax is the number, 11%.

Unlike the Federal tax, which is used to fund wildlife and conservation work, the CA law will use the money to "fund school safety, mental health and other violence prevention programs. "

Wonder if that will "stick"...

FITASC · December 29, 2023, 05:58 PM

Gee even MORE state government employees drawing high salaries, high pensions and nothing good will come from it. Throwing criminals in jail works much better.......

rc · December 29, 2023, 07:40 PM

They would be better off putting an 11% sin tax on the consumption of smart phones, Netflix, video games, alcohol, marijuana, music, and pornography which all negatively affect the ability of young people to form healthy long term relationships with other people. Spending time target shooting with dad, hunting with grampa or camping in the back woods with your family would have the opposite effect on mental health but as usual California politicians have their values backwards because they never learned to add very well in California schools.

**44 AMP** · December 30, 2023, 06:21 PM

CA would be better off if they did a lot of things differently. Point here is, is this a valid application of the state's right of taxation?

Requiring only a certain subset of the population to pay for things of (supposed) general benefit to society as a whole doesn't seem particularly fair, or just, to me.

rickyrick · December 30, 2023, 08:01 PM

In my opinion, taxes on a single civil right that explicitly forbids infringement in its wording, that is also intended to punish those who participate in that specific civil right, is indeed infringement.
I know my opinion holds no water in the real world.

FITASC · December 30, 2023, 08:56 PM

They are trying to make up for the loss of the high-earners who pay 45% of the entire state's income tax; those folks are also moving out along with the middle class

**44 AMP** · December 30, 2023, 09:55 PM

Quote:

They are trying to make up for the loss of the high-earners who pay 45% of the entire state's income tax; those folks are also moving out along with the middle class

No, I don't think that's the plan, particularly since an 11% tax on guns and ammo won't even remotely make up for the lost revenue due to people who want to keep their money leaving the state.

I think its more of a symbolic gesture, a sop to the masses, showing how much they "care" about the problem. For them, its a win/win, they get to show how much they care and how they're "solving" the problem with social programs, and they get to make (only) gun owners pay for it, which further chills the right to keep and bear arms, and WHEN those social programs fail, they get to blame gun owners for not paying enough......

I don't see it as honest, or ethical, but honest, ethical and sane governance has been pretty thin on the ground in CA (and other places) for quite some time now...

mehavey · December 30, 2023, 11:08 PM

For the lawyers...
Since "...the power to tax involves the power to destroy," does a targeted tax against
an enumerated Right have a Constitutional basis for appeal on those grounds ?

natman · December 31, 2023, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mehavey

For the lawyers...
Since "...the power to tax involves the power to destroy," does a targeted tax against
an enumerated Right have a Constitutional basis for appeal on those grounds ?

Yes. Same reason poll taxes are no longer allowed.

rc · December 31, 2023, 01:04 PM

Video/audio surveillance requirement will go into effect tomorrow for every dealer in CA including the home FFL. The new CCW restrictions will make most of CA a sensitive place. The increased class time for CCWs will drive up the costs to obtain a permit.

The 11% sin tax that I've been told doesn't go into effect for several more months like the other laws I've listed are all intended to put a chilling affect on the second amendment. In CA the magazine bans and assault weapons bans are still tied up in the courts even after being ruled unconstitutional. We still have an approved handgun list that limits the handguns we can buy to those models that have a set of mandated safety features. The state backed off microstamping because it was going to cause the entire law to be thrown out. New models still need a magazine disconnect and loaded chamber indicator. No Tisas 1911s here or Gen 5 Glocks unless you are a LEO and need an "unsafe gun" for work.

CA modeled the 11% tax on the federal law that funnels money into wildlife conservation and we know the 9th circuit is hostile to the second amendment. The 11% Tax has a high chance to pass legal scrutiny at the state and appeals level while the CCW restrictions and surveillance requirements may not. Who is going to keep their home based FFL if they have to give up their right to privacy and install a $30K surveillance system? This is Newsome's "Checkmate" to eliminate the private home FFL! It already caused all Big 5 chain stores to stop selling guns!

California placed a Sin Tax on cigarettes more than 30 years ago. Now people who smoke pay almost $10 a pack. In California, there is a 15% tax on the retail price of marijuana at the dispensary. The grower tax is $9.25 per ounce for flowers and $2.75 per ounce for leaves. DUI arrest for marijuana, pay restitution. It's about making money for the state and not about public safety!

CA government doesn't consider what is constitutional or common sense when passing laws. CA government only cares about taxation so they can spend money advancing liberal values. The Cigarette tax is the model for increasing taxation. People who own and use guns will pay while those who abort babies, oppose illegal immigration and support trans story time will get money from the state. I fully expect that once the legal challenges to the 2A taxes have played through the CA courts liberals will increase the tax to make exercising the 2nd amendment even harder.

California laws follow the incrementalist strategy. One law builds the foundation for the next. Restricting all ammunition sales to licensed dealers with a background check was never a viable solution to stop violent crime because it didn't stop theft. It is a viable solution to collecting taxes. There is no legal way around paying this new tax because you can't just buy ammo in Nevada and drive it home. The next step will be to increase the percentage of tax in a year or two or three to make guns and ammo even less affordable. Those who break the law will face two potential felonies. One felony for avoiding the background check, the other for failing to pay the tax. Checkmate! People are moving out of California with a smile on their face choosing places to live where constitutional rights are most respected and government is there to serve and protect rather than prosecute and collect.

**44 AMP** · December 31, 2023, 03:59 PM

Quote:

We still have an approved handgun list that limits the handguns we can buy to those models that have a set of mandated safety features.

I am not a CA resident, so please correct me if I'm wrong about this, but my understanding is that the state's "approved list" not only requires certain features, but only applies to guns that have been submitted for testing, and I've also heard that different finishes are treated as completely different guns.

The gun maker has to submit each different variant, and pay for its testing separately. They claim its about safety, but its not.

And, its obvious that its not about safety, since they allow people who are police officers to buy guns not on the list.

If it really was about (user) safety, they wouldn't let cops do that.

rc · December 31, 2023, 05:20 PM

The California "Safe Handgun" list is not at all about safety but instead all about restricting handgun availability by dictating features that all new handguns must have.

If a new gun model doesn't have approved features it can't be safety tested so it can't be sold new through a dealer except to a Law Enforcement officers who need a letter from their Chief saying it's for work. Several officers were prosecuted for dealing weapons when they decided to use the private party loophole to resell weapons at a profit. I believe some still do that, but they have to at least own it awhile. They can't just buy and resell frequently or the heavy hand of government will put them on the naughty list.

Older models that were on the list before about 2007 and pre date the newer safety requirements beyond drop testing can continue to be sold as long as there has been ZERO changes to the design and the makers continue to pay tribute renewing their right to sell that model every few years. Older Glock Models, Old Kimber, Springfield and Armscore 1911 models and CZ 75s without the newly required features are still considered "Safe" for sale as long as the makers keep paying renewal fees to the state. No CZ P10s, No Tisas 1911s or Hi Powers for sale here because there is no way to get them on the safe list for the first time without a loaded chamber indicator and magazine disconnect. Colt let their 1911s fall off the list more than 5 years ago but recently added the Colt Pythons that retail for about $1500 each because revolvers don't have some of the semi auto requirements. Private party you can expect to pay several thousand for a rare 1911 with a pony on the slide.

There was a single shot exemption originally which was eliminated because dealers figured out how to sell a gun converted to single shot, hold it for 10 days in that configuration and then put the gun back to normal operation on the day of pick up. I believe the only handguns now exempt from the drop testing are single actions like Colt 73 Clones. People were getting double action revolvers by having them converted to single action only and then converting them back after the transfer. It's quite the game of back and forth just like with the related drama of AR sales and bullet buttons.

So a private party individual can still sell an "unsafe" gun to another individual as long as they go to a dealer and get that "unsafe" gun registered to the new owner. Then it's perfectly OK to own and be resold as long as it goes through a dealer. Think of it like the machine gun registry. Say I wanted to sell my Dan Wesson DW22 I picked up on consignment. Dan Wesson isn't going to pay to have that model safety tested. The only way someone in California can get that model gun is to find somebody like me and buy it private party through a dealer. They can't go to gunbroker and look at all those beautiful classic handguns for sale and decide to buy anything they fancy and have it shipped to California because it may not be legal to import. I'm not sure if that applies to all handguns. I've heard antiques more than 50 years old may be exempt but I'm not confident enough to try to order one over the internet and have it shipped to my local dealer. It's all very convoluted and limits what we can collect. Anything off the list can be a nightmare of regulation to legally obtain from anywhere outside of CA. You see the actual point of the law was never about making handguns safer to use, but harder to obtain.

December 29, 2023, 05:27 PM	#1
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,860	"Sin tax" on guns & ammo in CA California is going to be putting an 11% tax on guns and ammo. They claim its modeled after the Federal Tax, but the only thing is has in common with the Federal tax is the number, 11%. Unlike the Federal tax, which is used to fund wildlife and conservation work, the CA law will use the money to "fund school safety, mental health and other violence prevention programs. " Wonder if that will "stick"... __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

December 29, 2023, 05:58 PM	#2
FITASC Senior Member Join Date: December 6, 2014 Posts: 6,446	Gee even MORE state government employees drawing high salaries, high pensions and nothing good will come from it. Throwing criminals in jail works much better....... __________________ "I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'—in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government—it doesn't own you."- Frank Zappa

December 30, 2023, 06:21 PM	#4
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,860	CA would be better off if they did a lot of things differently. Point here is, is this a valid application of the state's right of taxation? Requiring only a certain subset of the population to pay for things of (supposed) general benefit to society as a whole doesn't seem particularly fair, or just, to me. __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

December 30, 2023, 08:01 PM	#5
rickyrick Senior Member Join Date: March 15, 2010 Posts: 8,238	In my opinion, taxes on a single civil right that explicitly forbids infringement in its wording, that is also intended to punish those who participate in that specific civil right, is indeed infringement. I know my opinion holds no water in the real world. __________________ Woohoo, I’m back In Texas!!!

December 30, 2023, 08:56 PM	#6
FITASC Senior Member Join Date: December 6, 2014 Posts: 6,446	They are trying to make up for the loss of the high-earners who pay 45% of the entire state's income tax; those folks are also moving out along with the middle class __________________ "I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'—in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government—it doesn't own you."- Frank Zappa

December 29, 2023, 07:40 PM	#3
rc Senior Member Join Date: April 28, 2001 Location: CA Posts: 1,769	They would be better off putting an 11% sin tax on the consumption of smart phones, Netflix, video games, alcohol, marijuana, music, and pornography which all negatively affect the ability of young people to form healthy long term relationships with other people. Spending time target shooting with dad, hunting with grampa or camping in the back woods with your family would have the opposite effect on mental health but as usual California politicians have their values backwards because they never learned to add very well in California schools.

December 30, 2023, 11:08 PM	#8
mehavey Senior Member Join Date: June 17, 2010 Location: Virginia Posts: 6,898	For the lawyers... Since "...the power to tax involves the power to destroy," does a targeted tax against an enumerated Right have a Constitutional basis for appeal on those grounds ?

December 31, 2023, 01:04 PM	#10
rc Senior Member Join Date: April 28, 2001 Location: CA Posts: 1,769	California's Game of Legal Chess Video/audio surveillance requirement will go into effect tomorrow for every dealer in CA including the home FFL. The new CCW restrictions will make most of CA a sensitive place. The increased class time for CCWs will drive up the costs to obtain a permit. The 11% sin tax that I've been told doesn't go into effect for several more months like the other laws I've listed are all intended to put a chilling affect on the second amendment. In CA the magazine bans and assault weapons bans are still tied up in the courts even after being ruled unconstitutional. We still have an approved handgun list that limits the handguns we can buy to those models that have a set of mandated safety features. The state backed off microstamping because it was going to cause the entire law to be thrown out. New models still need a magazine disconnect and loaded chamber indicator. No Tisas 1911s here or Gen 5 Glocks unless you are a LEO and need an "unsafe gun" for work. CA modeled the 11% tax on the federal law that funnels money into wildlife conservation and we know the 9th circuit is hostile to the second amendment. The 11% Tax has a high chance to pass legal scrutiny at the state and appeals level while the CCW restrictions and surveillance requirements may not. Who is going to keep their home based FFL if they have to give up their right to privacy and install a $30K surveillance system? This is Newsome's "Checkmate" to eliminate the private home FFL! It already caused all Big 5 chain stores to stop selling guns! California placed a Sin Tax on cigarettes more than 30 years ago. Now people who smoke pay almost $10 a pack. In California, there is a 15% tax on the retail price of marijuana at the dispensary. The grower tax is $9.25 per ounce for flowers and $2.75 per ounce for leaves. DUI arrest for marijuana, pay restitution. It's about making money for the state and not about public safety! CA government doesn't consider what is constitutional or common sense when passing laws. CA government only cares about taxation so they can spend money advancing liberal values. The Cigarette tax is the model for increasing taxation. People who own and use guns will pay while those who abort babies, oppose illegal immigration and support trans story time will get money from the state. I fully expect that once the legal challenges to the 2A taxes have played through the CA courts liberals will increase the tax to make exercising the 2nd amendment even harder. California laws follow the incrementalist strategy. One law builds the foundation for the next. Restricting all ammunition sales to licensed dealers with a background check was never a viable solution to stop violent crime because it didn't stop theft. It is a viable solution to collecting taxes. There is no legal way around paying this new tax because you can't just buy ammo in Nevada and drive it home. The next step will be to increase the percentage of tax in a year or two or three to make guns and ammo even less affordable. Those who break the law will face two potential felonies. One felony for avoiding the background check, the other for failing to pay the tax. Checkmate! People are moving out of California with a smile on their face choosing places to live where constitutional rights are most respected and government is there to serve and protect rather than prosecute and collect.

December 31, 2023, 05:20 PM	#12
rc Senior Member Join Date: April 28, 2001 Location: CA Posts: 1,769	The California "Safe Handgun" list is not at all about safety but instead all about restricting handgun availability by dictating features that all new handguns must have. If a new gun model doesn't have approved features it can't be safety tested so it can't be sold new through a dealer except to a Law Enforcement officers who need a letter from their Chief saying it's for work. Several officers were prosecuted for dealing weapons when they decided to use the private party loophole to resell weapons at a profit. I believe some still do that, but they have to at least own it awhile. They can't just buy and resell frequently or the heavy hand of government will put them on the naughty list. Older models that were on the list before about 2007 and pre date the newer safety requirements beyond drop testing can continue to be sold as long as there has been ZERO changes to the design and the makers continue to pay tribute renewing their right to sell that model every few years. Older Glock Models, Old Kimber, Springfield and Armscore 1911 models and CZ 75s without the newly required features are still considered "Safe" for sale as long as the makers keep paying renewal fees to the state. No CZ P10s, No Tisas 1911s or Hi Powers for sale here because there is no way to get them on the safe list for the first time without a loaded chamber indicator and magazine disconnect. Colt let their 1911s fall off the list more than 5 years ago but recently added the Colt Pythons that retail for about $1500 each because revolvers don't have some of the semi auto requirements. Private party you can expect to pay several thousand for a rare 1911 with a pony on the slide. There was a single shot exemption originally which was eliminated because dealers figured out how to sell a gun converted to single shot, hold it for 10 days in that configuration and then put the gun back to normal operation on the day of pick up. I believe the only handguns now exempt from the drop testing are single actions like Colt 73 Clones. People were getting double action revolvers by having them converted to single action only and then converting them back after the transfer. It's quite the game of back and forth just like with the related drama of AR sales and bullet buttons. So a private party individual can still sell an "unsafe" gun to another individual as long as they go to a dealer and get that "unsafe" gun registered to the new owner. Then it's perfectly OK to own and be resold as long as it goes through a dealer. Think of it like the machine gun registry. Say I wanted to sell my Dan Wesson DW22 I picked up on consignment. Dan Wesson isn't going to pay to have that model safety tested. The only way someone in California can get that model gun is to find somebody like me and buy it private party through a dealer. They can't go to gunbroker and look at all those beautiful classic handguns for sale and decide to buy anything they fancy and have it shipped to California because it may not be legal to import. I'm not sure if that applies to all handguns. I've heard antiques more than 50 years old may be exempt but I'm not confident enough to try to order one over the internet and have it shipped to my local dealer. It's all very convoluted and limits what we can collect. Anything off the list can be a nightmare of regulation to legally obtain from anywhere outside of CA. You see the actual point of the law was never about making handguns safer to use, but harder to obtain.