Is there any legal defense for high gun and ammo Taxes?

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

usmarine0352_2005

member
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
2,796
With Seattle enacting it's tax on guns ($25 each) and ammo (.02 cents on every .22 caliber or smaller round, and .05 cents for every other round of ammunition) and the NRA fighting it it seems that the defense they are using, if I'm correct, is preemption. Stating that cities can't make stricter gun control laws than the state.

If this is correct then perhaps this law will be stopped. However, not every state has preemption laws.



So, is there any legal defense on stopping excessively high taxes on guns and ammo?
 
I'm not sure, but I don't think so. Universal Health Care[*Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act] was upheld by the Supreme Court as a TAX. The government has the right to tax, so they say.
 
Last edited:
So, is there any legal defense on stopping excessively high taxes on guns and ammo?
Click to expand...

Seeing as how the Federal government can now tax you if you don't buy Healthcare, and taxes on cigarettes are phenomenally high I'm thinking there are no boundaries when a government has been given the right to tax.
 
I suspect that there is, but I'm not sure when we'll see the right case to push it. There will always be some power to tax, regardless of the item being sold. However, I think that there is some parallel to be drawn with a line if cases involving the First Amendment and taxes on ink. Unfortunately, I'm about to run out the door and don't have time to research this or lay it all out.
 
Spats McGee said:
I suspect that there is, but I'm not sure when we'll see the right case to push it. There will always be some power to tax, regardless of the item being sold. However, I think that there is some parallel to be drawn with a line if cases involving the First Amendment and taxes on ink. Unfortunately, I'm about to run out the door and don't have time to research this or lay it all out.
Click to expand...
Kind of...

https://litigation-essentials.lexis...ev.+1073&key=f2b7bffbce76e6305388a9e93e480df4

The Tribune appealed the Commissioner's decision to a Minnesota district court, attacking the statute imposing the tax as constituting a denial of equal protection and an abridgment of freedom of the press, ...
Click to expand...
 
usmarine0352_2005 said:
With Seattle enacting it's tax on guns ($25 each) and ammo (.02 cents on every .22 caliber or smaller round, and .05 cents for every other round of ammunition) and the NRA fighting it it seems that the defense they are using, if I'm correct, is preemption. Stating that cities can't make stricter gun control laws than the state.
...
Click to expand...

What I can't figure out is why the State of Washington has not attempted to squash the Seattle gun tax proposal. It's a violation of WA state law. So, WA State should lead the fight.
 
steelerdude99 said:
What I can't figure out is why the State of Washington has not attempted to squash the Seattle gun tax proposal. It's a violation of WA state law. So, WA State should lead the fight.
Click to expand...
In general, States don't do that sort of thing. It's up to someone aggrieved by a local ordinance to challenge it on whatever grounds possible, including state preemption.
 
Prior to passage or adoption, I'd try a media effort in claiming racism. This would be a regressive tax on poor people, and the majority of the poor are ethnic minorities. "You hate poor people!" is helpful in such an effort.

It worked with the US Congress, back when Ted Kennedy and others were fulminating against "Saturday Night Special" handguns. Also with proposals for truly-high federal taxes on certain types of ammo.
 
Lived there for years. Seattle is a small city. Kind of like L.A. in that what most people consider Seattle is outside of the actual city of Seattle. I'm wracking my brain and cant think of anywhere in the actual city of Seattle to buy guns or ammo. Every place you'd actually want to buy from is on the outskirts of King County where that tax nonsense doesn't apply. I'm sure someone will jump in with "what about...XXX" OK. I'm sure there are a few but it seems to me to be a largely symbolic gesture.
 
The government cannot levy a prohibitively high tax on something essential to a fundamental guaranteed right. Hence SCOTUS quite properly tossed the very high tax on barrels of ink as violating the newspaper's freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

Nobody knows how much is too much.

We already pay a small tax on the manufacture of ammunition, earmarked for providing public shooting related resources.

I suspect that the ammo tax is over the line.
 
The government cannot levy a prohibitively high tax on something essential to a fundamental guaranteed right.
Click to expand...

They can't? How about the $200 tax on machine guns and short-barrelled rifles and shotguns? :rolleyes:

When it was originally passed, it was intended to be a confiscatory tax. I don't see it going away any time soon! :mad:
 
Since when does the law matter to the government?

SCOTUS decided that the 2nd Amendment really IS an individual right, so it would seem that taxing the purchase of firearms would be pretty much the same as taxing a person's freedom of speech, or establishing a poll tax.

But we still have the $200 NFA tax and the "invisible" Pittman-Robertson tax - as well as sales taxes by state and local governments. I'd say that ss long as we have a lawless government, we're stuck.
 
Poll taxes were declared unconstitutional on the ground that they taxed a right and were intended to prevent free exercise of that right. I think the National Firearms Act might have been struck down on that ground had the case been presented that way, but it never was, even when $200 was worth about $8000 today.

But I doubt a court would consider $25 prohibitory today; they might rule on principle, but the money would not be significant since many states charge $10-20 or more for a license or its equivalent.

Jim
 
The argument that taxing firearms is akin to taxing voting is valid. The argument could be made that taxing voting and taxing firearms is akin to taxing one's right against self incrimination. (Want to plead the 5th? sure, no problem, just pay this tax.) Or one's 6th amendment right to a jury trial. (Want a fair trial by jury? Sure, just pay this tax.) If a government can tax one Constitutional right, where does that authority end?

If this case goes to the Supreme Court, it's possible (albeit unlikely given the court's current membership) that the court could rule that all taxes on firearms are unconstitutional-even the normal consumer goods sales tax, and that would be really nice-especially on higher end guns.

But notice I only mentioned taxes on guns. Lawyers and judges are extremely focused on words and their meanings. "Legaleese" if you will. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about the right to keep and bear ammo. (I know, I know, one is worthless without the other.) But some crafty lawyer, and some activist judge can and will make that argument and that argument is not entirely invalid.
 
"The government cannot levy a prohibitively high tax on something essential to a fundamental guaranteed right"

You'd think that the notion of a prohibitive tax itself would be something that should plainly not exist in our system (since it is a law that defeats its own purpose, and can therefore not be in keeping with the law), but we all know there are plenty in effect, almost since the beginning. For Pete's sake, didn't we have like a 90% income tax rate for a portion of a person's income at one time? Makes the rain-soaked bed-wetters in the Washington Capitol today look like pikers.

"How about the $200 tax on machine guns and short-barrelled rifles and shotguns?"
About 3500$ adjusted for inflation (which thankfully wasn't included in the law; we were on the gold standard back then, so it didn't occur to anyone). Does anyone know if the initial implementation of NFA was actual 'confiscatory,' or were all existing items now subject to the law grandfathered in without tax, given the proper registration?

TCB
 
This Seattle gun & ammo tax scam is nothing more than an attempt to
circumvent the states preemption law. Seattle liberals think they are above
the law and want to tax all gun and ammo dealers out of Seattle.
This situation is the exact reason for the state preemption law, that is to
ensure that all gun related laws are valid state wide.
There is no way I would like to see varying firearms law from town to town
and city to city. That would be way too difficult to deal with for gun owners.

................................ Jack
 
Does anyone know if the initial implementation of NFA was actual 'confiscatory,' or were all existing items now subject to the law grandfathered in without tax, given the proper registration?
Click to expand...

When the NFA went into effect in 1934, all currently-possessed NFA items could have been registered free. Remember, the NFA taxes were on "transfer" and on "making" (after the effective date of the law), and not on "possession." Stated another way, in terms of tax theory, the NFA is "transaction-based" and not "object-based." The registration system was so that the transfer/making taxes could be enforced. Having an unregistered NFA item after the short grace period was defined as a crime. But that was ancillary to the tax.
 
I've enacted a personal embargo against Seattle.

I don't have to pay 'em a thing if I never go there or make any purchases.


One consideration I do have is that I think more people are on welfare every day, fewer are paying taxes, and the government's are taxing everything they can think to tax in order to keep the deadbeats housed and fed. Ammo is a good tax target, because they only anger a subsection of voters, most of whom are employed and have discretionary income.

Income tax for me is 28%, then there is social security and Medicare, not to mention a nearly 10% sales tax... Property tax, vehicle registration, permits for off highway vehicle, state trust land, parks, forests, hunting and fishing.

The government takes about 50% of my earnings.


It's taboo to say it, but I resent people on welfare. I feel like a slave. I work hard while some fat sloth takes the fruits of my labor.

The government will keep ratcheting up the taxes on the few left that are paying-in until the equation can no longer be balanced through any means.

Hindering the supply of firearms and ammo is just a by-product, IMO tax revenue is the primary motive.
 
Last edited:
"...cities can't make stricter gun control laws than the State..." I believe that depends on the State. You'd have to look into municipal tax jurisdiction too. Seattle may be trying to tax something they have no legal right to tax.
"...government takes about 50% of my earnings..." Isn't just you. Or Arizona.
"...liberals think they are above the law..." All of 'em think that. One law for them and one for everybody else.
 
In Seattle it's just a political statement and vote getter. It won't fly but the leftist/socialist in Seattle already know that. It wasn't passed to generate revenue because most of the gun owners and gun stores have already left. The only one's there now that need ammo are the gang bangers.
 
usmarine0352_2005 said:
With Seattle enacting it's tax on guns ($25 each) and ammo (.02 cents on every .22 caliber or smaller round, and .05 cents for every other round of ammunition) and the NRA fighting it it seems that the defense they are using, if I'm correct, is preemption. Stating that cities can't make stricter gun control laws than the state.

If this is correct then perhaps this law will be stopped. However, not every state has preemption laws.



So, is there any legal defense on stopping excessively high taxes on guns and ammo?
Click to expand...
"taxes" don't need to be "defended" ... just voted on.
 
""taxes" don't need to be "defended" ... just voted on."

Something about two wolves and a sheep, there. Contrary to modern political developments, it was never the purpose of our system to enable the majority to steal all the minority's stuff, on a tax basis...although the shear obviousness of that eventuality was clear even back then, hence only (wealthy) landowners were given the right to vote in most circumstances, and for a good while.

TCB
 
Earlier someone said that the Second Amendment only explicitly states the right to bear arms cannot be infringed, it says nothing about ammo. However, the Ninth Amendment states that their are other rights people have, but in the interest of brevity, they cannot all be listed. Since the right to bear arms is absolute, it is also absolute that the right to keep and bear anything associated with the arms is also absolute, just not expressly stated.

If my logic is correct, if a poll tax is unconstitutional as it taxes the right to vote then a tax on any of the first 10 amendments is unconstitutional. That would mean any sort of tax on firearms, powders, bullets, ammo, primers, and flint should be exempted from tax and this includes the $200 and $5 NFA stamps.

Because of this, a sales tax is unconstitutional as you have a right to purchase things for sale, especially those that are associated with one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, but I doubt any justice will make such a ruling because they don't want to wake up with a severed horse head underneath their bed's blankets.

These are all my opinions that I've thought up on the spot, but I would love to hear the argument and the decisions by the justices in taxes on firearms.
 
TruthTellers said:
Earlier someone said that the Second Amendment only explicitly states the right to bear arms cannot be infringed, it says nothing about ammo. However, the Ninth Amendment states that their are other rights people have, but in the interest of brevity, they cannot all be listed. Since the right to bear arms is absolute, it is also absolute that the right to keep and bear anything associated with the arms is also absolute, just not expressly stated.

If my logic is correct, if a poll tax is unconstitutional as it taxes the right to vote then a tax on any of the first 10 amendments is unconstitutional. That would mean any sort of tax on firearms, powders, bullets, ammo, primers, and flint should be exempted from tax and this includes the $200 and $5 NFA stamps.

Because of this, a sales tax is unconstitutional as you have a right to purchase things for sale, especially those that are associated with one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, but I doubt any justice will make such a ruling because they don't want to wake up with a severed horse head underneath their bed's blankets.

These are all my opinions that I've thought up on the spot, but I would love to hear the argument and the decisions by the justices in taxes on firearms.
Click to expand...
That's your interpretation. There are others. Additionally, there are a great many who do not agree the 2nd Amendment is "absolute." Indeed, if it were absolute, we likely wouldn't be having this discussion, and my neighbor would own a bazooka.

In regards to the 9th Amendment, I don't think it protects a non-existent right not to have your favorite hobby taxed. If that were so, it would have prevented the outrageous taxes on other hobbies, such as smoking and chewing tobacco, getting drunk, and driving. (sin and gas taxes, respectively.)

But that's my interpretation. I'm not a Supreme Court justice, although I play one on T.V.
 
usmarine0352_2005 said:
....So, is there any legal defense on stopping excessively high taxes on guns and ammo?
Click to expand...
Except for Spats McGee's comment, the posts have pretty much been off target and not very useful to an understanding of the real legal question.

There is a good deal of decisional law on (1) the power and authority of a governmental entity to tax; (2) the distinctions between taxation for the purposes of raising revenue and taxation for the purposes of regulation; and (3) when and why a law imposing a tax for regulatory purposes might, or might not, be valid.

Whether or how a law imposing a tax on guns or ammunition might, or might not, be vulnerable to legal challenge will be determined based in large part on that body of decisional law. So opinions not based on applicable decisional law really won't tell us anything helpful with regard to the question.

I'll leave this thread open for a bit to see if anyone has any constructive to say. If not, I'll just close it to cut of the chasing of tails.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Watch the Seattle gun tax lawsuit
Replies
2
Views
707
Midwest
M
D
  • Locked
Wa state alert: Seattle mayor will ban guns
2 3
Replies
56
Views
4K
HeavenlySword
H
M
  • Locked
Proposals to tax guns and ammunition
2
Replies
47
Views
3K
foghornl
F
A
  • Locked
Judge upholds Seattle 'gun violence tax' despite challenge from gun rights groups
2 3
Replies
65
Views
4K
Old Dog
Old Dog
Ivy Mike
  • Locked
Legal question on gun registration in NV.
Replies
6
Views
299
Regolith
R
Back
Top