Tacoma City Council postpones gun tax vote

Status
Not open for further replies.

Blue Brick

Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2007
Messages
2,156
Location
Pinal County, Arizona
Last edited by a moderator:
2 cent tax on 22lr per round is oppressive. I think they know something that bad will trigger a court case they won't win even here in WA.

Seattle has a worse tax but only on center fire. I don't know a single place to buy ammo within city limits, but thankfully that's because online and neighboring jurisdictions provide an easy remedy.

That said, it's a sign of the times in WA and displays new antigun practices. You can't charge me a fee to vote, how can you charge me a tax to shoot? Seems like a clear parallel to a poll tax to me.
 
They are taxing people who own and use firearms for lawful and traditional purposes because of gun violence, misuse of guns by bad people.

Please do not suggest taxing people to vote: I suspect the punitive gun tax supporters would also be happy to restore punitive poll taxes to punish misuse of the vote by bad people (those who don't vote for the establishment party machine). They weaponized the IRS against supporters of the wrong candidate, didn't they?

Added: I have always (like since the 1960s) felt that gun control (legal restriction on the law abiding) was akin to thinking you could stop rape or prostitution by adding ever increasing taxes and restrictions on marriage licenses. It's insane, voodoo criminology thinking.
 
Last edited:
"The power to tax is the power to destroy." I'm frankly surprised that the antigunners aren't pushing these kinds of taxes even more. (And they would pass constitutional muster more easily than outright bans would. We already have the precedent of the NFA '34 being held to be constitutional.)
 
I didn't see anywhere what the tax was for? Generally anti-gun taxes are tied to gun violence studies, etc. If it's purely a punitive tax, I think it will have a hard time passing judicial scrutiny.
 
I didn't see anywhere what the tax was for? Generally anti-gun taxes are tied to gun violence studies, etc. If it's purely a punitive tax, I think it will have a hard time passing judicial scrutiny.
Taxes are rarely earmarked for specific uses. I don't see the lack of an earmark as a ground to attack the tax.
 
This is a big deal here. And the biggest gun shop (which is also a distributor and supplier of guns, body armor and other equipment) to local and state LE agencies) left in the city limits is prepared to move out of the city immediately should this measure pass.

I don't see the lack of an earmark as a ground to attack the tax.
Uh, say WHAT? It absolutely is grounds to attack the tax. No taxation should EVER be levied on citizens sans an intended -- and logical -- use for the revenues to be generated. It's another form of "sin tax," it's discriminatory and it's symptomatic of the ever-growing nanny state.

Yet these same localities will have the taxpayers funding homeless villages, safe-injection sites for the junkies (with NARCAN and nurses paid for by the taxpayers), pay tuition at schools for children of illegal immigrants when our children can't get financial aid because we actually pay income taxes, work hard, but earn too much money, refuse to cooperate with ICE/DHS which puts undocumented criminals back on the streets, and on an on and on ...
 
A couple of points. First, Seattle passed an identical tax last year and it passed the first judge as he ruled cities have the right to tax as the purpose as stated was for gun violence prevention and education, throwing out the states preemption law, still in the courts.
Tacoma is identical including the reason for it. Problem for them is at least 2 council members are on record stating the real reason was reducing gun ownership in the city, could be a problem for them in the courts .
 
Uh, say WHAT? It absolutely is grounds to attack the tax. No taxation should EVER be levied on citizens sans an intended -- and logical -- use for the revenues to be generated.
I think we're talking past each other. A stated use for the funds is never required for a tax to be valid. The appropriations process is separate from the tax-writing process.

Your income taxes go into a general fund. As a taxpayer, you have no grounds to object to any particular use to which the funds might be put.
 
I think we're talking past each other. A stated use for the funds is never required for a tax to be valid. The appropriations process is separate from the tax-writing process.

Your income taxes go into a general fund. As a taxpayer, you have no grounds to object to any particular use to which the funds might be put.
Yes but in this case because Wa is a preemption state it is against the law for any city or county to pass any law that regulates firearms other than the state law. The tax is an attempt to get around that law.
 
That’s absurd. It is your absolute DUTY to object to illegitimate use of tax revenue.
You can object all you want, but courts have repeatedly held that taxpayers have no standing to challenge how their taxes are spent.
Yes but in this case because Wa is a preemption state it is against the law for any city or county to pass any law that regulates firearms other than the state law. The tax is an attempt to get around that law.
It would be hard to prove an adequate "nexus" between the tax and the unlawful regulation of firearms. The city could just say that the purpose of the tax was simply to collect revenue.
 
Tacoma is identical including the reason for it. Problem for them is at least 2 council members are on record stating the real reason was reducing gun ownership in the city, could be a problem for them in the courts .

t would be hard to prove an adequate "nexus" between the tax and the unlawful regulation of firearms. The city could just say that the purpose of the tax was simply to collect revenue.
As I said in my other post 2 council members areon record saying otherwise.
 
I object at the ballot box. All my representatives have listed phone numbers and social media.
Only sheeple will bend over and take it quietly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top