5 ms·
California doubles taxes on guns and ammunition to pay for school security
- agensaequivocum 3y agoThis is unconstitutional and will be struck down as such.
- bandyaboot 3y agoWhat makes it unconstitutional? Edit: to the person that asked what makes poll taxes unconstitutional…that would be the amendment to the constitution that literally makes it unconstitutional.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- agensaequivocum 3y agoIt's a constitutionally recognized inalienable right. Try taxing every social media post and news paper article and see how that goes.
- RoyalHenOil 3y agoI have never heard of any federal court ruling the way you claim they will. There are MANY rights we have (to own property, to work, to access necessities to live, etc.) that are nonetheless taxed.
- agensaequivocum 3y agoProperty seems to be a special case. There has always been this taxation in America. It was never understood otherwise. If by working you mean income taxes. Well they had to pass an amendment to allow it. Again, the question of a arms sold in commerce being subject to a general sales tax is different than what this is. Which is a excise tax aimed at arms because the California legislature and governor hate our freedoms and are throwing shit at the wall to restrict, make acquisition and possession as difficult as possible to people from even trying.
- bandyaboot 3y agoSo why have existing taxes on guns and ammunition not been struck down?
- agensaequivocum 3y agoBecause someone needs to challenge the law and pre-Bruen court acted like the 2A didn't exist.
- bandyaboot 3y agoI see. We’re just waiting on a case to be brought before a True Scotsman.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago> pre-Bruen court acted like the 2A didn't exist. You mean, before Bruen the court acted like that first clause of the 2A was more than just flavor text.
- agensaequivocum 3y agoFind me a gun control law the 9th circuit didn't consider too far. I'll wait. I refer you to this thread[1] of dozens of sources that show the only pre-20th century view is the individual right view consistent with Heller, McDonald, and Bruen. [1]https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1645290263299117056 https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1645290263299117056
- Acrobatic_Road 3y agoBecause they don't exist, other than the Pittman-Robertson Act. And nobody has ever challenged that act because the tax proceeds go to conservation, which hunters appreciate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_Restoration_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Fede...
- rbetts 3y agoNewspapers are taxed, though? As are megaphones, audio equipment, printers, …
- agensaequivocum 3y agoThey fall under general sales tax not a specific punitive tax for what they are.
- Paul-Craft 3y agoSugary drinks are taxed in many California cities, for no other reason than they contain sugar. Is that also unconstitutional by your logic?
- riku_iki 3y agoI assume taxing news paper may be considered as limiting freedom of speech.
- agensaequivocum 3y agoIs a sugary drink a constitutionally enumerated inalienable right?
- defrost 3y agoand if so is sugar specifically singled out to be well regulated?
- agensaequivocum 3y agoIt's not and "well regulated" is not the operative part of the amendment. "Shall not be infringed" is.
- defrost 3y agoIt's all part of the text .. leaving out "well regulated (ie. trained responsible locals that can act as a unit, not village idiots with 3 DUI's and a couple of domestic violence charges) is 'infringing' on that right to have well drilled, well outfitted, well regulated, armed people. You're just picking out the bits you like.
- keep_reading 3y agoMoney is speech. Therefore money should not be taxed. Checkmate liberals
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- meristohm 3y agoThe wording (obtuse, to me) of the second amendment to the United States constitution: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[0] M-W Definition of infringe: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another My questions: To what degree is it okay to increase profit (see list below) from the sale of firearms? 1) by the manufacturer? 2) by the government(s) that bears a burden of firearm misuse? 3) by the government(s) that provides for the infrastructure to make and distribute firearms? [0] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/
- pstuart 3y agoAnd what does "well regulated militia" mean?
- ecshafer 3y agoWell regulated means armed and maintained. Militia means informal, non state sanctioned people with arms.
- pstuart 3y agoA take that seems to go deeper in a reasonable manner: https://www.heritage.org/the-essential-second-amendment/the-well-regulated-militia https://www.heritage.org/the-essential-second-amendment/the-...
- pauldenton 3y agohttps://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8 https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8
- water9 3y agoIt certainly doesn’t mean well, regulated as in restricted, because nobody’s gonna say oh no, we’re being invaded thank God we have so many restrictions limiting the size of our weaponry to protect ourselves, the security of the state will definitely be preserved because we’re so well restricted, I mean regulated
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Daishiman 3y agoThere's nothing about it that makes it unconstitutional.
- smithcoin 3y agoPerhaps a little cynical of me but my first thought was how the timing of this new tax coincides with the upcoming rush of Californians buying regular sized mags again [0]. [0] https://reason.com/2023/09/24/californias-10-round-magazine-limit-is-unconstitutional-a-federal-judge-rules-again/ https://reason.com/2023/09/24/californias-10-round-magazine-...
- Acrobatic_Road 3y agoAssuming the 9th circuit allows it. Some companies are taking orders already, but they say they won't ship until the ten days are up. I can confirm however, that some companies have shipped magazines into California outside freedom-week in the past so I'd just order and see.
- mock-possum 3y agoHow much is doubled? > The federal government already taxes the sale of guns and ammunition at either 10% or 11%, depending on the type of gun. The law Newsom signed adds another 11% tax on top of that It went from 10% to 20% - which seems significant, your $500 shotgun now costs $600 I wonder if that’ll have any impact on shifting price points for firearms? Paying an extra hundred bucks in taxes feels like a lot to me. My guess is it would push people into a lower price point bracket across the board? e.g. if I would normally be looking for a $500 gun, I will now be looking for a $400 option?
- smithcoin 3y agoFor the most part, I think firearms purchases are fairly price inelastic; people know what they want, and are either viewing it as an investment or are purchasing it for fear that the government is going to regulate it later.
- eindiran 3y agoThe enormous success of low cost manufacturers like PSA suggests that this is not true.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago> It went from 10% to 20% - which seems significant, your $500 shotgun now costs $600 I think you mean $550 to $600, since there was a 10% tax before.
- daniel-cussen 3y ago[dead]
- Acrobatic_Road 3y agoThis is part of a longstanding effort by anti-groups to price people out of firearm ownership. With this tax, gun owners in California will pay 11% + up to 10.75% general sales tax + 10%-11% federal excise tax. Maximum of 32.75% tax on a firearm. But that's not all, since California has deliberately restricted the supply of handguns in the state by banning all new semiautomatic pistol models for the last 10 years (unless you purchase from a cop, then its legal because reasons), forcing manufacturers to make old, outdated California specific models, and extorting them for the "privilege" of keeping their handguns on the roster. California has also banned people from importing ammunition into the state, and implemented a mandatory ammunition background check system. It costs $20 to register, and $1 for each transaction. Then there's local regulations, like San Jose's insurance requirement (which would not have covered a single incident in the last 7 years, but gun owners must buy anyway), and zoning regulations that prevent people from opening up gun stores.
- agensaequivocum 3y agoDon't forget the DROS fees, ammo background check fees, and SB 2 which, in the words of the sponsor himself, generally only allows one to carry a concealed gun on some sidewalks. This effectively eviscerates our God-given right to carry a firearm.
- roody15 3y agoThe school security enhancements are problematic. We are now looking at schools much like we look at prisons. Constant training on "code red" or "intruder" drills that simulate active shooter scenarios with students present. We are creating a culture of fear where even at school you could be attached and killed by a madman. Secured entryways .. fences... constant tracking of students of every metric imaginable.. always back to school "security". Have any of these "code red" security upgrades prevented a school shooting event? What kind of institution do we want our children to attend? What do we want them to learn? I am all for safety in schools but are we responding to a real risk... or are we responding to more a culture of fear and political reaction? What are the real risk to our children? Obesity? Diet. Exercise.. Social / emotional connections. Are we investing our tax money on the right things?
- Ms-J 3y agoI agree. All of this security theater does nothing for safety and increases psychological issues, such as anxiety, in students. There is also a market for predatory companies who sell sham security solutions to the school districts.
- riku_iki 3y ago> We are creating a culture of fear from another hand society is cruel and violent, I am not confident where those kids will live when grow up: in safe gated condo community, or high crime area, so maybe teaching them how to handle danger is a good thing.
- nico 3y ago> society is cruel and violent Which society? Why does this happen only (mostly) in the US though? That’s what we should be trying to solve instead of just endlessly escalating Are we going to end up with militarized schools because we can’t address the real issues that create the violence in the first place?
- riku_iki 3y ago> Why does this happen only (mostly) in the US though? > That’s what we should be trying to solve instead of just endlessly escalating I think this culture consists of many components: culture of violence (movies, games), people accept it as given, aggressive capitalism and social segregation. It is hard to tell how much effort it will take to rebuild American society, and if it is achievable.