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

[Old Dog]

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.

The Boston Tea Party occurred after the Tea Tax was enacted -- and that was essentially a reduction in taxes (3 cents per pound of tea), but as AlexanderA notes, it was really about "no taxation without representation."

The 11% per box of 50 rounds is still much less than our 5 cents per round tax on centerfire ammunition in Seattle and Tacoma.

The issue really is, is this proposed tax a discriminatory tax? Pretty sure all of us would answer in the affirmative.

 

[AlexanderA]

The issue really is, is this proposed tax a discriminatory tax? Pretty sure all of us would answer in the affirmative.

To be unconstitutional, a tax would have to be discriminatory plus trample on an enumerated right, such as the right to vote (15th Amendment) or the RKBA (2nd Amendment). There are lots of discriminatory taxes (such as excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco) that have been held to be OK. The other issue is whether the tax is merely inconvenient or whether it's prohibitory. That's where the amount of the tax enters the calculation. (For example, the $200 NFA tax, in 1934, was pretty much intended to be prohibitory. The courts failed in not striking it down.)