Batty67
Member
Sadly, California is a lost-cause. Sort of like a republican presidential candidate not even bothering to go to NY or MA. Or a Dem to KS.
Calif. special 10% additional sales tax on ammo
- Thread starter Twiki357
- Start date
- Status
22-rimfire
Member
The constitutionality issue mostly comes up when it is a "per bullet/cartridge" tax as it did in IL.
I wonder how CA is going to enforce this? Are they going to place a little ammo tax seal on each box or only charge it like other sales taxes showing up on your receipt? In TN for example, it is illegal to use ammunition that the tax has not been paid (and does not have the seal, much like placed on liquor bottles). But who actually pays attention to that? Just about nobody except the retailers who stand to loose their license if the tax is not paid....
I suspect you will see more of this kind of thing implemented in the traditionally anti-gun states. It is both a money grab and back door gun control. But we have seen with this ammunition shortage that people are willing to pay a lot of money for ammunition if necessary.
I wonder how CA is going to enforce this? Are they going to place a little ammo tax seal on each box or only charge it like other sales taxes showing up on your receipt? In TN for example, it is illegal to use ammunition that the tax has not been paid (and does not have the seal, much like placed on liquor bottles). But who actually pays attention to that? Just about nobody except the retailers who stand to loose their license if the tax is not paid....
I suspect you will see more of this kind of thing implemented in the traditionally anti-gun states. It is both a money grab and back door gun control. But we have seen with this ammunition shortage that people are willing to pay a lot of money for ammunition if necessary.
Last edited:
Certainly, because some types of arms cannot function without ammunition, and only a great fool (plenty of those) would believe that the 2nd Amendment is meant to protect non-functional weapons. Trying to be "cute" with technicalities like this does not pass constitutional muster.
statelineblues
Member
Originally posted by 4v50 Gary:
It will end up being like when PA changed its law about selling fireworks -firework stores popped up all along the NJ border. NJ State police sat on the other side of the state line and pulled over anybody seen at one of those stores once they crossed over into NJ then ticketed them and confiscated the stuff they bought.
It will end up being like when PA changed its law about selling fireworks -firework stores popped up all along the NJ border. NJ State police sat on the other side of the state line and pulled over anybody seen at one of those stores once they crossed over into NJ then ticketed them and confiscated the stuff they bought.
22-rimfire
Member
Police actually bust people in PA for fireworks (usually large quantities however). I took some fireworks to a family gathering in PA and some of my brothers were a little uncomfortable when I started to set things off. Of course, we were in a state park.
First I heard of Jersey cops busting PA residents for fireworks purchased in their state where they are legal. But then, you can get busted for loose ammunition in your car in NJ so nothing would surprise me.
First I heard of Jersey cops busting PA residents for fireworks purchased in their state where they are legal. But then, you can get busted for loose ammunition in your car in NJ so nothing would surprise me.
oldbear
Member
There are thousand of lawyers who've made a lot of money doing just that. Ask one of them if it works or not..
Deaf Smith
Member
I suspect like tobacco and booze taxes when they get onerous people will do all kinds of smuggling to avoid them.
Yes truck loads of ammo that will be distributed to street sellers just like drug sales. BUT, far more people feel they have a right to guns and ammo than people who think they have a right to drugs.
Gonna have interesting times in California (as if they don't already.)
Oh, and bad guys don't need thousands of rounds to practice. Just a pocket full so they can test their guns and then go do their deeds.
So you see, it's all a transparent thing to get money and ban guns/ammo from good folk.
Deaf
Yes truck loads of ammo that will be distributed to street sellers just like drug sales. BUT, far more people feel they have a right to guns and ammo than people who think they have a right to drugs.
Gonna have interesting times in California (as if they don't already.)
Oh, and bad guys don't need thousands of rounds to practice. Just a pocket full so they can test their guns and then go do their deeds.
So you see, it's all a transparent thing to get money and ban guns/ammo from good folk.
Deaf
Reefinmike
Member
busted for loose ammo? thats insane. Im never going to NJ because im sure there is atleast a box worth of 22 HP's scattered between seats, under trim pieces, in air vents etc etc in my truck. Heck- I keep a box of 5 different calibers in my center console for those impromptu oppurtunities to bust off a box in someones back yard or in case I didnt bring enough ammo to the range.
California has gone mad. what are they going to do for reloaders? tax 10% on components and another $50 on probably already overpriced primers?
SilentStalker
Member
Will someone explain to me how micro-stamping works exactly? From what I have read in the past they planned on stamping the cases. Um, what good would this do? Just because a case is found somewhere doesn't necessarily mean anything. Then you also have the whole possibility of someone grabbing some brass at the range and reloading it, and then if they used in a way that was illegal it would be traced back to the original buyer which may or may not have done anything. And then some have said they plan on stamping the bullets themselves. Wow, um that would most likely be unrecognizable once fired as well especially if it ever met a very hard target. So, I ask again, how could this work?
It works to the advantage of government by infringing on our rights and discouraging us from exercising them. The selling points you referenced are just that--nothing more.
Librarian
Member
Please do not try to introduce facts and logic into the discussion with legislators - their minds were made up in 2007 when this microstamping bill passed, over all the objections you note, and others.
Deaf Smith
Member
Legislators are not concerned with 'facts' or 'logic'.
They only concern themselves with VOTES.
As long as the masses (50.000001 percent) vote them in that is all they care about.
They don't care why they voted them in, or what the voters really want. As long as they can fool that 50.00001 percent then it's ok with them.
Deaf
The far left power mad communistnazis have been in control of Calif. for many years. It is only gonna get worse. One of the these days, guns will be banned, hunting will be banned, and self defense will be banned.
The communistnazis and full blown outlaws will rule. UTOPIA at last!!
L.W.
The communistnazis and full blown outlaws will rule. UTOPIA at last!!
L.W.
Certaindeaf
member
Well, look at the bright side.. at least they'll be able to buy more votes with the money.
Both CA Ammo Tax bills died in committee
Earlier today, AB 187 (Ammo Tax), AB 760 (Ammo Tax), and AB 1020 ($ Million DROS Expenditure to send letters) all failed todays’ deadline for passage out of the Appropriations and Tax & Revenue Committees.
http://blog.crpa.org/?p=5190&preview=true
Earlier today, AB 187 (Ammo Tax), AB 760 (Ammo Tax), and AB 1020 ($ Million DROS Expenditure to send letters) all failed todays’ deadline for passage out of the Appropriations and Tax & Revenue Committees.
http://blog.crpa.org/?p=5190&preview=true
Should be able to be defeated.
A poll tax is illegal. Has been ruled so because it charges a fee to exercise a constitutional right.
Extra taxes on a Constitutional right should be able to be defeated.
By taking this too far in fact I think the resulting decision could result in the removal of an already present tax many were not as motivated to defeat and many more don't even know exists. The extra tax on firearms and ammunition for wilderness conservation going back decades (10-11%.)
That tax will also likely become illegal, as it should, whether people agree with it or not.
So the defeat of this California 10% tax could actually drop the price of firearms 20% in California, and 10% in the nation.
A good team should be able to show how no rights actually are protected if the power to tax is allowed to be manipulated to reduce or eliminate who, when, or how often a right can be exercised through extra fees that apply specifically to that right beyond normal commerce. Irregardless of whether the reason can be manipulated to sound logical. Like paying for firearm related problems of criminals etc
Otherwise you can start taxing things needed for the First Amendment too. For example add a religious text tax to pay for any wrongs committed by religious extremists. These wrongs certainly cost a lot of money for government to deal with, and a huge federal expense is trying to prevent and deal with such things in its anti terrorism efforts.
Want to buy a bible? A Quran? Religious text tax.
Maybe a tax for not housing a soldier in your home, exercising your Third Amendment right. Certainly by exercising your third Amendment right you are costing the government money that would have been saved if they could use your home as residence for a soldier. By forcing them to give soldiers housing allowances, build barracks, etc you are costing the government money and certainly a Third Amendment tax is reasonable right?
We could go down the list of why every right costs society money. I mean several rights specifically deal with the accused, and how massive do you think the additional costs are to operate a court system with so many rights? Certainly things would be a lot cheaper and simplier if people could merely be locked away at the government's whim without trials, if searches could be conducted without warrants, if people had to bear witness against themselves or be guilty of another crime. Many of the costs associated with tedious investigations, prosecutions, etc could all be elimiated.
Should you then have a 4th or 5th Amendment tax to offset these things?
A poll tax is illegal. Has been ruled so because it charges a fee to exercise a constitutional right.
Extra taxes on a Constitutional right should be able to be defeated.
By taking this too far in fact I think the resulting decision could result in the removal of an already present tax many were not as motivated to defeat and many more don't even know exists. The extra tax on firearms and ammunition for wilderness conservation going back decades (10-11%.)
That tax will also likely become illegal, as it should, whether people agree with it or not.
So the defeat of this California 10% tax could actually drop the price of firearms 20% in California, and 10% in the nation.
A good team should be able to show how no rights actually are protected if the power to tax is allowed to be manipulated to reduce or eliminate who, when, or how often a right can be exercised through extra fees that apply specifically to that right beyond normal commerce. Irregardless of whether the reason can be manipulated to sound logical. Like paying for firearm related problems of criminals etc
Otherwise you can start taxing things needed for the First Amendment too. For example add a religious text tax to pay for any wrongs committed by religious extremists. These wrongs certainly cost a lot of money for government to deal with, and a huge federal expense is trying to prevent and deal with such things in its anti terrorism efforts.
Want to buy a bible? A Quran? Religious text tax.
Maybe a tax for not housing a soldier in your home, exercising your Third Amendment right. Certainly by exercising your third Amendment right you are costing the government money that would have been saved if they could use your home as residence for a soldier. By forcing them to give soldiers housing allowances, build barracks, etc you are costing the government money and certainly a Third Amendment tax is reasonable right?
We could go down the list of why every right costs society money. I mean several rights specifically deal with the accused, and how massive do you think the additional costs are to operate a court system with so many rights? Certainly things would be a lot cheaper and simplier if people could merely be locked away at the government's whim without trials, if searches could be conducted without warrants, if people had to bear witness against themselves or be guilty of another crime. Many of the costs associated with tedious investigations, prosecutions, etc could all be elimiated.
Should you then have a 4th or 5th Amendment tax to offset these things?
Last edited:
It puts the guns serial number or a code on the firing pin in tiny letters on the firing pin tip. When the case is ejected and left at a crime scene, the police can trace the gun used.
Unless the criminal has filed off the tiny letters or swapped with an old pin or pocketed some range brass to spread around....
Unless the criminal has filed off the tiny letters or swapped with an old pin or pocketed some range brass to spread around....
Each gun would have a serial number or code engraved on the tip of the firing pin. When the brass is ejected and left at a crime scene, the code could be read and the police would know which gun fired the shot.
Unless the criminal filed off the tiny letters or swapped in a non-engraved pin or grabbed a handful of range brass to scatter around....
oldbear
Member
Zoogster, you have posed an interesting argument. Tobacco is still a legal product but has been subject to huge state and federal taxes over the last 20 years. The use of alcohol (with certain limitations) is a Constitutional right, yet alcohol like tobacco is highly taxed on many levels.
As much as I dislike the idea of ANY new taxation, as a lay person I believe the state of California has the right to levy taxes on ammo as well as most products. I also believe that this will end up causing more problems than doing any good. I base this on the failure of the 18th amendment and the lawless it created.
Folks remember that there are any number of established firearm and ammo sellers in the Reno/Sparks area, which are not that long a drive from many of the large Metro areas in California.
For folks interested, the bill mentioned in the OP was defeated...for the third time in the last 10 years
Tobacco is not specifically mentioned as a right, and one would need to stretch something like the 9th, which is so broad as to have little legal relevance today in protecting almost anything, to even pretend it is.
Alcohol is also not a Constitutional Right. Rather the Amendment that specifically outlawed it was repealed, removing it from being Constitutionally prohibited but not Constitutionally protecting it.
So it is not a right at all, and states and localities are free to ban it entirely, or tax it in a manner to discourage its use to whatever extent they wish.
Which is why there was still many dry counties around the country for decades, which are slowly dwindling in number since that time, but which were in no way a violation and still are not.
Contrasted with things that are Constitutionally protected which cannot be banned. Taxes to discourage or reduce the ability to exercise a right, as the poll tax was used in some places, are also specifically prohibited at any level of government.
Heller protected firearms are rights, and a tax intended to discourage or reduce the ability to exercise that right (the real purpose here) or which had that result would be little different than a poll tax intended to reduce how many people of certain classes or groups exercise that right.
Levying extra taxes on a right is unconstituional.
- Status
