Quantcast

Tacoma City Council postpones gun tax vote

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Blue Brick, Oct 31, 2019.

  1. Blue Brick

    Blue Brick Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,988
    Location:
    Pinal County, Arizona
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 3, 2019
    sequins likes this.
  2. sequins

    sequins Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    Messages:
    1,160
    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.
     
    Bfh_auto likes this.
  3. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    9,010
    Location:
    Kingsport Tennessee
    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: Oct 31, 2019
    DoubleMag and Spats McGee like this.
  4. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,495
    Location:
    Virginia
    "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.)
     
    Walkalong likes this.
  5. Speedo66

    Speedo66 Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2008
    Messages:
    7,052
    Location:
    Flatlandistan
    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.
     
    2bfree likes this.
  6. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,495
    Location:
    Virginia
    Taxes are rarely earmarked for specific uses. I don't see the lack of an earmark as a ground to attack the tax.
     
  7. Speedo66

    Speedo66 Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2008
    Messages:
    7,052
    Location:
    Flatlandistan
    Hopefully the mayor or a councilman will make a stupid remark about it that will provide some leverage.
     
    2bfree likes this.
  8. Old Dog

    Old Dog Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    7,531
    Location:
    Back on Puget Sound
    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.

    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 ...
     
  9. 2bfree

    2bfree Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Messages:
    450
    Location:
    Washington
    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 .
     
    Speedo66 and DoubleMag like this.
  10. 2bfree

    2bfree Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Messages:
    450
    Location:
    Washington
     
    Speedo66 likes this.
  11. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,495
    Location:
    Virginia
    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.
     
  12. Virginia Jim

    Virginia Jim Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2017
    Messages:
    277
    That’s absurd. It is your absolute DUTY to object to illegitimate use of tax revenue.
     
    Demi-human likes this.
  13. 2bfree

    2bfree Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Messages:
    450
    Location:
    Washington
    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.
     
    Demi-human likes this.
  14. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,495
    Location:
    Virginia
    You can object all you want, but courts have repeatedly held that taxpayers have no standing to challenge how their taxes are spent.
    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.
     
  15. 2bfree

    2bfree Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Messages:
    450
    Location:
    Washington
    As I said in my other post 2 council members areon record saying otherwise.
     
  16. Virginia Jim

    Virginia Jim Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2017
    Messages:
    277
    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.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice