Challenge likely as Seattle opts to add tax on gun, ammunition sales

[Newsjock]

Source: Seattle Times

The Seattle City Council voted unanimously Monday to establish a tax on gun and ammunition sales in the city, and to require gun owners to report lost and stolen firearms to police.

Council President Tim Burgess has said the tax of $25 per gun and 2 or 5 cents per round of ammunition is expected to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars annually that will be set aside for gun-violence-prevention research and programs.

... Representatives of gun-rights groups have said the tax, which will be assessed from gun sellers, is illegal because a state law prohibits cities from regulating firearms.

The tax is scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1, 2016, but there may be a delay because the city likely will be sued by gun-rights groups.

Read more: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-to-add-tax-on-gun-ammunition-sales/

[Fred Sanders]

1. Should be $250, just to cover the medical costs of gun carnage. Guns are not immune from taxes.

[GP6971]

3. Sure they are

at private gun shows

[stone space]

35. What Does Gun Violence in America Really Cost?

[Fred Sanders]

43. Maybe my proposed $250 per gun Death Tax on guns is too low. Maybe better to just melt them all.

[stone space]

46. "They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their AK-47s into guitars."

Isaiah 2:4

[LonePirate]

2. It's about time someone remembered that "well regulated" is in the Second Amendment.

[GGJohn]

5. It's about time that someone learns what the founding fathers meant by "well regulated" in the 2A.

It meant something different way back then.

[villager]

9. Ah, the Second Amendment "meant something different way back then"

I guess then -- as with the Constitution originally allowing slavery -- meanings have changed over the centuries.

[Cryptoad]

10. More likely

the true power of the 9th amend has more and more been realized that no Rights granted by the Constitution is absolute. Rights limit Rights.

[GGJohn]

15. 2 totally different issues.

But "well regulated" back them meant well functioning and well equipped.

[Hoyt]

30. Like in the militia/military, not any ole yahoo who wants to walk down the street with a gun.

I don't think the founding fathers, many of whom owned slaves, really envisioned millions of silly Americans who need a boat load of gunz to make their lives worthwhile.

[GGJohn]

78. I don't think the founding fathers envisioned the internet, not automobiles,

nor many, many things we have now.

BTW, just because you think it's silly to own numerous firearms, doesn't make it so.

I own many, many firearms, those don't make my life worthwhile, what makes my life worthwhile is my family, my health, my financial stability, oh, and making people like you upset that I own numerous firearms.

[CTyankee]

18. Yup, I could see that one coming! We're such idiots, we can't read the Constitution...

one get tired of their worn out message...

[hack89]

20. It is easy to read. Understanding is another thing all together. nt

[CTyankee]

21. well, there is such a thing as disagreement in "understanding."

[hack89]

22. But the argument that language has changed in 250 years is a logical and reasonable one

one that can be backed up by facts. A casual dismissal because it doesn't fit your agenda does not reflect well on you or your cause.

[CTyankee]

23. fine, you have your understanding and I have mine.

[hack89]

28. Once gun control thought moves beyond bumper stickers and tweets

you will make more progress.

[Darb]

97. We will make progress.

Sanity will prevail, fantasy will falter.

I know it hurts your sensibilities to not be able to threaten society with your guns, but the day will come when civilized people reclaim the ground taken by the fear-mongers and fantacists.

[hack89]

99. I threaten no one

in 35 years of gun ownership I have never harmed a living thing. I just compete in target shooting. If that constitutes a threat to society in your eyes then I contend that you are the one living in a fantasy world.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

27. The Constitution was amended to specifically address and change on the issue of slavery.

It has not been amended to change the issue of well-regulated militias.

[CTyankee]

68. well, we had to fight a Civil War in order to do that successfully.

And I think we would have better outcomes with a majority on the Supreme Court who could revisit the Heller decision.

[LonePirate]

25. The meaning of the entire Second Amendment has changed since it was written.

But that doesn't stop people from cherry picking which portions of the Second Amendment should be supported.

[Fred Sanders]

24. Did you know at NRA headquarters they ERASED the "well regulated" part in their commemerative wall plaque?

How much more obvious can you get that it is all a propaganda outfit - massive con and terrorism job by gun manufacturers and their brainwashed gun lovers?

No gun lover will deny that because it is true!

[Hoyt]

32. +1. And, except for the executive shooting range, they don't allow any ole armed yahoo to walk into

the headquarters. They know how nuts, and unregulated, some gun fanciers are.

[cstanleytech]

4. Frankly I would not mind them adding in a mandatory safety evaluation course for

gun owners either that they have to retake every few years...............and yes I think the same should be done for people who drive especially in my area as there are a shit load of idiots on the road in my area who insist on weaving in and out of traffic at 15 to 20 mph over the speed limit and never use a damn turn light to signal that they are changing lanes.

[Hoyt]

6. I'm fine with any tax, registration, etc., requirements imposed on ammo. We ought to be taxing,

regulating the heck out of things that cost society dearly.

[DinahMoeHum]

102. +1000s

n/t

[sarisataka]

7. Not to be a downer

since the reporting requirement is a good idea, but the tax will never hold up.

Even if it passes state law muster it will be unconstitutional as it applies only to sellers. See:
Minneapolis Star Tribune Company v. Commissioner, 460 U.S. 575 (1983)
and
Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233 (1936)

[Hulk]

8. I think it was Chris Rock who said that "bullets should cost $10,000 a piece".

Makes sense. People would think twice before they started popping them off in neighborhoods, or lose their mind because someone called them a name, or cut them off in traffic. If bullets cost a lot, people would think twice before wasting a bullet for stupid reasons.

It was a great comedy skit. But there really was some logic and reasoning to the whole thing. Yes....tax the living shit out of ammo. It would cost $300,000 to fill up a 30 round clip. Guess how many 30 round clips would be sold....

[hack89]

12. There is a good reason Chris Rock is an entertainer and not a constitutional scholar

what he (and you) are proposing is unconstitutional. This is settled law.

[Darb]

13. They have many sin taxes, this is just another sin.

Called the sin of whaling "I want my toys!!!!!!!!!", or for others "I want to be able to shoot people that make me mad!!!" Both sins of the stupid and scared. And do not forget the sin of "I'm a tiny tough guy, darnit, you are gonna gimme sum repec!!!". Also, the "Black people sceer me!! AAAAAHHH!!!" sin is a commonly found sin. And on the other side of that coin, the "Society is again me, Imma gonna go gansta!!!"

All sins of the gun. It is a sinful object, like alcohol or tobacco. A scourge.

[hack89]

14. You cannot tax a civil right out of existence

it is more like a tax to vote or go to church or to speak your mind.

This is settle law. There is plenty of case law.

[melm00se]

17. Didn't you get the memo?

the 2nd Amendment really isn't a civil right, that is an NRA manufactured myth. Because of this it is not worthy of the same protection(s) as "true" civil rights.

[Darb]

93. The 2nd doesn't say what you think it says.

You might want to reread it. The whole thing this time, starting with "A well regulated militia".

[melm00se]

104. you might want to read the Heller decision

The Supreme Court has ruled on this particular argument and decided that it holds no water.

[hack89]

106. Go read the Democratic party platform

the part where it says the 2A protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

[stone space]

36. Bullets are a Civil Right?

You cannot tax a civil right out of existence

Does the right to bullets come before or after the right to water, food, and shelter?

[hack89]

38. What kind of rights are in the Bill of Rights?

if you want to call it a civil liberty instead then that's ok too.

[stone space]

39. I'm asking you to rank the right to bullets with the right to water, food, and shelter.

Does the right to bullets come before or after the right to water, for example?

You're the one who claimed that bullets are a civil right.

[hack89]

40. All constitutional rights are of equal value in the eyes of the law

which means none (food, water, voting, religion, free speech, arms) can be taxed out of existence.

Can we at least agree on that basic fact of US law?

[stone space]

41. Do you rank the right to bullets above or below the right to water?

You seem to have missed my question, somehow.

[hack89]

42. They are equal in the eyes of the law

you missed my answer.

[stone space]

44. In YOUR eyes, is the right to bullets ranked...

...above or below the right to water.

They are equal in the eyes of the law

I didn't ask how anybody else ranks those rights. Please stop trying to divert from the question at hand.

I only asked where YOU rank them.

[hack89]

47. In my eyes they are all equal

they can all be regulated but none cannot be taxed out of existence.

[stone space]

48. I disagree strongly. I put the right to water above...

...the right to bullets.

In my eyes they are all equal

We are in fundamental disagreement here.

[hack89]

50. That's fine.

neither of us has an actual say in the matter - the courts will protect the Bill of Rights as they should.

[stone space]

80. Just remember. Bullets are a privilage, not a right. (nt)

[GGJohn]

82. If you actually believe that, then you are ignorant of poll taxes and their unconstitutionality. eom

[hack89]

83. Wrong. The 2A covers ammunition.

Which makes it a right.

[stone space]

87. Food, water, shelter, voting...those are rights. Not bullets. (nt)

[hack89]

88. So the Bill of Rights are not really rights? Ok. Nt

[GGJohn]

89. Civics isn't your strong suit is it. eom.

[Darb]

94. Yes, you can tax guns and bullets.

And we can regulate you militia fantasists. I'd like to regulate that you store your video game, AR15s, bananas, and ridiculously over-powerful handguns at a shooting range, where they may never leave.

You can keep your shotguns and normal hunting rifles at the house for whatever you do with them. We will put a stipulation in the law that says you can go retrieve your ARs, Uzis, glocks and your bananas when the Zombie apocalypse starts, or the race war, that way you can fight your wet dream race war AFTER your imaginary foe starts it. Thank me later.

Sorry, you'll have to kill foreign looking college students that mistakenly knock on your door looking for a Halloween party with your shotgun. Same with unarmed, hoodie-wearing, dark-skinned shoppers that don't belong in your neighborhood. But that will still be cool right?

[hack89]

100. Never said you couldn't - there is a federal tax on guns and ammo right now

I was replying to a post that suggested ammo should be taxed to the point that no one can afford it. Please try to keep up.

[yeoman6987]

105. Sin tax on things not in the constitution is fine

This tax will be struck down by the courts.

[melm00se]

11. The power to tax is the power to destroy

[Fred Sanders]

33. The power to tax is the power to create a just society...it is in the Constitution!

[melm00se]

37. You don't mind if

I give more weight to John Marshall than you, do you?

[Taitertots]

16. Hooray for regressive pseudo pigouian fines!

[CTyankee]

19. I think the term Pigouvian fits nicely here myself...IIRC my grad course in Econ...

[Taitertots]

45. Do you support regressive psuedo pigouvian taxes?

And it isn't Pigiouvian because the market activity (buying and selling guns) doesnt cause the externality (costs associated with crime).

[CTyankee]

49. I very much see it as a negative externality. YMMV.

[Taitertots]

51. Then your opinion is wrong.

The market activity doesn't create costs for non-participants.

You're trying to push the costs associated with the negative externalities associated with gun crime onto innocent people who have nothing to do with the externality. It's both regressive AND non-Pigiouvian.

[CTyankee]

52. Many innocent people do have lots to do with the externality.

[Taitertots]

54. An externality that isn't the result of the market activity

Criminals should be forced to pay for the externalities that result from their actions.

Innocent people should not have to pay regressive fines because someone else creates a negative externality.

[LanternWaste]

55. All things being equal, that sounds like an argument against car insurance.

"Innocent people should not have to pay regressive fines..."

All things being equal, that sounds like an argument against car insurance. No doubt, additional qualifiers will have to be added after the initial statement so that it cannot stand as such...

[Taitertots]

60. "All things being equal"... They are not equivalent, so the comparison is without merit

Why do you think innocent people should have to pay regressive taxes/fines?

[Darb]

95. They are not innocent.

They are crybabies, but not innocent.

[Taitertots]

108. What crime did they commit?

[CTyankee]

56. a tax is not a fine. I see how you switched the language.

Many guns used in violent activity are stolen and often stolen from law abiding gun owners who have committed no crime. But unless they have their guns locked in a safe, well, the gun is no longer safely stored. Norway has a gun loving population who use them mostly for hunting. But after one massacre, the people were so shocked they put into place more stringent gun regulations, including the inspection of homes by the government to ensure the owners guns were locked up securely. http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/norway.php

Now, I am sure this would cause 4th amendment challenges in the U.S. But you cannot say that in all cases there are no negative externalities caused by legal gun owners.

As for the reasons for Pigouvian taxes in the first place, we certainly accept them in heavier taxes on tobacco and alcohol. But not everyone who uses these products get lung cancer or drive under the influence. I pay the heavier taxes on the wine I like to have with dinner even tho I don't cause the negative externality of driving under the influence and causing death and destruction.

[Taitertots]

63. You're just wrong about Pigiouvian taxes

You are not matching the Pigiouvian tax to the activity that CAUSES the externality.

It's not Pigiouvian to tax gun purchases because the market activity isn't the proximate cause for the external costs.

[CTyankee]

65. but it is the whole point of "sin" taxes, isn't it?

At least it has been referred to as such, just as the Pigouvian subsidy has been exemplified by subsidies for development of helpful vaccines.

"In 1920, British economist Arthur C. Pigou wrote The Economics of Welfare.[5] In it, Pigou argues that industrialists seek their own marginal private interest. When the marginal social interest diverges from the marginal private interest, the industrialist has no incentive to internalize the cost of the marginal social cost...He also references businesses that sell alcohol. The sale of alcohol necessitates higher costs in policemen and prisons, Pigou argues, because of the crime associated with alcohol. In other words, the net private product of alcohol businesses is peculiarly large relative to the net social product of the same business. He suggests that this is why most countries tax alcohol businesses (Pigou 1920)."

Similarly, taxes are increased on tobacco products because of the higher costs in health care for smokers who develop lung cancer.

[CTyankee]

66. And another economist on this issue

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/12/what-do-economists-know-about-guns.html

Note the concluding paragraph which essentially says what I do. If we are not about to ban certain guns outright, we can relieve some "inefficiency" through higher taxes on them.

[CTyankee]

92. Sounds to me like "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

hmm...

And here is an interesting piece by a professor of philosophy on the "proximate cause" argument you have made

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/logical-take/201302/guns-don-t-kill-people-people-do

Gee, I wonder where that "proximate cause" argument comes from...let me think...

[Taitertots]

109. You found a blog that supports your opinion *starts slow clap*

Cool story bro.

[CTyankee]

110. back atcha bro

[PoliticAverse]

70. "a tax is not a fine". Is the charge for not having health insurance a tax or a fine or a penalty?

How do you tell the difference between each? The first Supreme Court challenge to the ACA
showed that the difference is not as distinct as some would like to think.

[CTyankee]

72. well, you can look it up since that was the question before the court. What did they rule?

Here's a strong hint: http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/05/politics/scotus-health-care-tax/

sorry if you are disappointed.

Jaysus, am I still on DU?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. Likely? I'd say guaranteed. The NRA won't let that pass unchallenged. nt

[hack89]

29. State law is the bigger hurdle

RCW 9.41.290

State preemption.

The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.
[1994 sp.s. c 7 § 428; 1985 c 428 § 1; 1983 c 232 § 12.]

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.290

[Fred Sanders]

34. What is not being let to pass unchallenged is NRA insanity.

Did you see the white gun Hillbilly terrorists "guarding" Ferguson?

Yeah, that kind of stupid exists, same as the level of stupid of the NRA.

[hack89]

31. Violates state law

RCW 9.41.290

State preemption.

The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.
[1994 sp.s. c 7 § 428; 1985 c 428 § 1; 1983 c 232 § 12.]

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.290

[maxsolomon]

91. it would be a fine case to push beyond the state to the feds then

Seattle v State of Washington? Sounds like a story I hear every day, and vice-versa.

Reporting of stolen weapons component aside, is a tax a "regulation"? We shall see.

[PoliticAverse]

53. Could a conservative city place a tax on abortion procedures?

And use the proceeds to fund abstinence programs?

[CTyankee]

58. No. Abortion is legal, AND it is regulated within the strictures of the various decisions

by the SCOTUS. Since when do we tax medical care?

[PoliticAverse]

69. We tax lots of legal and regulated things.

Note that one of the early versions of the ACA included a tax on elective cosmetic surgery
( see: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-12-21-health-care-plastic-surgery-tax_N.htm )

[CTyankee]

71. not in the least similar. Abortion is a constitutionally protected right; cosmetic

surgery is not, except I would imagine in cases of injury such as fire accidents, automobile accidents, etc. "Elective" is your key word here.

[PoliticAverse]

73. Most abortions are "elective" procedures (not performed out of medically necessary),

that didn't prevent the court from protecting them as a 'right'.

Row v. Wade was decided on the basis of a "right to privacy" for a mostly elective medical procedure.

[CTyankee]

74. so what is your point? That women who view their lives as seriously threatened by

an unplanned pregnancy should be disregarded? To compare a woman's right to choose, which is constitutionally protected, to a facelift is insulting to women. Again, what is your point?

[PoliticAverse]

75. The point of this discussion of determining the limits of what the government may tax.

If something is a "right" may the government tax it?

[CTyankee]

76. well, what do YOU think? please explain.

[PoliticAverse]

77. Doesn't matter what I think. It matters what the courts will hold.

Do you think the current Supreme Court would find a $25 'tax' on each abortion used
to fund educational efforts to reduce the number of abortions to be unconstitutional?

[CTyankee]

79. They would sure have to find a firm precendent to do so.

Let's look at the evolution of the poll tax.

The 24th Amendment, ratified in 1964, abolished the use of the poll tax (or any other tax) as a pre-condition for voting in federal elections,[13] but made no mention of poll taxes in state elections.

In the 1966 case of Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, the Supreme Court overruled its decision in Breedlove v. Suttles, and extended the prohibition of poll taxes to state elections. It declared that the imposition of a poll tax in state elections violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Harper ruling was one of several that relied on the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment rather than the more direct provision of the 15th Amendment. In a two-month period in the spring of 1966, Federal courts declared unconstitutional poll tax laws in the last four states that still had them, starting with Texas on 9 February. Decisions followed for Alabama (3 March) and Virginia (25 March). Mississippi's $2.00 poll tax (equal to $14.54 in 2013) was the last to fall, declared unconstitutional on 8 April 1966, by a federal panel.[14] Virginia attempted to partially abolish its poll tax by requiring a residence certification, but the Supreme Court rejected the arrangement i

[yeoman6987]

107. Guns are legal too

[CTyankee]

111. what's your point? my statement had to do with medical care...

[yeoman6987]

112. It had to do with abortion which you said was legal

And I reminded you of the same with guns. Both are constitutionally protected.

[CTyankee]

113. well, yes (maybe we can get Heller reversed with a Dem appointing the next

SCOTUS justice when one retires).

Guns are not health care. I have never heard of medical care being taxed.

[weknowvino2]

57. If It Were Up to Me...

If It Were Up to Me
Words and Lyrics by:
Cheryl Wheeler

Maybe it's the movies, maybe it's the books
Maybe it's the bullets, maybe it's the real crooks
Maybe it's the drugs, maybe it's the parents
Maybe it's the colors everybody's wearin
Maybe it's the President, maybe it's the last one
Maybe it's the one before that, what he done
Maybe it's the high schools, maybe it's the teachers
Maybe it's the tattooed children in the bleachers
Maybe it's the Bible, maybe it's the lack
Maybe it's the music, maybe it's the crack
Maybe it's the hairdos, maybe it's the TV
Maybe it's the cigarettes, maybe it's the family
Maybe it's the fast food, maybe it's the news
Maybe it's divorce, maybe it's abuse
Maybe it's the lawyers, maybe it's the prisons
Maybe it's the Senators, maybe it's the system
Maybe it's the fathers, maybe it's the sons
Maybe it's the sisters, maybe it's the moms
Maybe it's the radio, maybe it's road rage
Maybe El Nino, or UV rays
Maybe it's the army, maybe it's the liquor
Maybe it's the papers, maybe the militia
Maybe it's the athletes, maybe it's the ads
Maybe it's the sports fans, maybe it's a fad
Maybe it's the magazines, maybe it's the internet
Maybe it's the lottery, maybe it's the immigrants
Maybe it's taxes, big business
Maybe it's the KKK and the skinheads
Maybe it's the communists, maybe it's the Catholics
Maybe it's the hippies, maybe it's the addicts
Maybe it's the art, maybe it's the sex
Maybe it's the homeless, maybe it's the banks
Maybe it's the clearcut, maybe it's the ozone
Maybe it's the chemicals, maybe it's the car phones
Maybe it's the fertilizer, maybe it's the nose rings
Maybe it's the end, but I know one thing.
If it were up to me, I'd take away the guns.

(P) October 1, 1997

Penrod And Higgins Music / Amachrist Music
ACF Music Group
International Copyright Reserved

[Freddie Stubbs]

59. Sounds like a boon for gun stores in surrounding cities

[CTyankee]

67. Yes, and the tax's proponents are aware of it but since it can't be done state wide

they figure "something is better than nothing."

[GGJohn]

81. There's a reason it can't be enacted state wide,

because only the state legislature can set firearms laws, including ammunition policies.
Seattle has clearly violated WA. state pre-emption law and it's pretty certain that the courts are going to strike down this new law and probably have to cut a nice check to either the NRA or GOA.

[CTyankee]

84. Oh, you again. well, that won't take long to fix. bye.

[GGJohn]

86. That's your answer to someone giving you info?

Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying LALALALA?

[Darb]

96. Info?

Is that what it is called? Or do you mean opinion?

[GGJohn]

101. I meant exactly what I said. eom.

[ileus]

61. Buy outside of city limits...save some money.

[maxsolomon]

90. I have a friend who lives close to a gun store on US 99 in the city limits

to the threat that this store will re-locate outside the city, she says "is that supposed to be bad?".

[wordpix]

62. way too little but better than no action at all

hurray for Seattle but boo for not charging more in tax

[GGJohn]

85. Hate to burst your gleeful bubble,

but the courts are almost certain to strike down this law due to WA. state pre-emption law over the issue of firearms.

[Darb]

98. Pre-emptive laws are for cowards.

Not to mention probably unconstitutional. What's to stop a law pre-empting the law that is pre-empting those laws. It's ridiculous. Just deal with it, guns can be regulated and will be. You are sooner or later going to have to park your toy at a shooting range. Deal with it.

[GGJohn]

103. Hate to burst your bubble, well, no I don't,

but pre-emption laws have already been found to be Constitutional.
I never said that guns can't be regulated, they already are and as far as parking my firearms, not toys, at a shooting range?

[Turin_C3PO]

64. I wouldn't mind a reasonable tax.

The gun tax seems ok, not sure of the ammo one. I don't believe in taxing constitutionally protected items out of existence but I do not think a small tax is unconstitutional.