UPDATE: Seattle on gun tax only pulled $103,766! Doublin' down!

[Dave Workman]

    

WA Supremes Side With Seattle on ‘Gun Violence Tax’

The Washington State Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the authority of the City of Seattle to impose a so-called “gun violence tax” on the sale of firearms and ammunition within city limits.

http://libertyparkpress.com/wa-supremes-side-seattle-gun-violence-tax/

[magnanimous_j]

   

WA Supremes Side With Seattle on ‘Gun Violence Tax’

The Washington State Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the authority of the City of Seattle to impose a so-called “gun violence tax” on the sale of firearms and ammunition within city limits.

http://libertyparkpress.com/wa-supremes-side-seattle-gun-violence-tax/

I think the gun/ammo tax is ridiculous and ineffective, but why should it be illegal?

We have special taxes on all kinds of things, tobacco, gas, liquor etc. From a purely legal standpoint, why should guns/ammo be excluded from special taxes?

[Fl0und3rz]

Because it is designed not for any valid state purpose, it is ineffective at accomplishing such valid state purpose,  and/or it is NOT narrowly tailored to effect that valid state purpose. 

The only thing missing to conclude that the "real purpose" is to target and harass lawful gun owner's for no other reason than because they are exercising a constitutionally protected right is the evidence of "state" intent to do so, an incriminating email expressing the desire to drive gun shops out of the city, the "smoking gun."

[Knocker of rocks]

I think the gun/ammo tax is ridiculous and ineffective, but why should it be illegal?

We have special taxes on all kinds of things, tobacco, gas, liquor etc. From a purely legal standpoint, why should guns/ammo be excluded from special taxes?

As I'm sure you are aware, the contention is that such laws and taxes are outside the grasp of municipalities and the responsibility for such is specifically given to the state as per the state constitution.

I guess the state Supreme Court disagrees with me.

[magnanimous_j]

As I'm sure you are aware, the contention is that such laws and taxes are outside the grasp of municipalities and the responsibility for such is specifically given to the state as per the state constitution.

Guns especially? Because as far as I'm aware, cities have to power to levy taxes as well. IE that stupid paper bag tax.

[Fl0und3rz]

Correct me if I am wrong, KOR, but I think you were referring to this.

Article I, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution states: “[t]he right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

There is no state preemption of plastic bag regulations.

[bigfish9684]

As I'm sure you are aware, the contention is that such laws and taxes are outside the grasp of municipalities and the responsibility for such is specifically given to the state as per the state constitution.

Guns especially? Because as far as I'm aware, cities have to power to levy taxes as well. IE that stupid paper bag tax.

The bag tax is saving trees.  Oh wait...

[Knocker of rocks]

Correct me if I am wrong, KOR, but I think you were referring to this.

Article I, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution states: “[t]he right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

There is no state preemption of plastic bag regulations.

Not sure which statute or article,  but same premise that this was based on

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/state-supreme-court-agrees-that-seattle-cant-itself-ban-guns/

[Dave Workman]

I think the gun/ammo tax is ridiculous and ineffective, but why should it be illegal?

We have special taxes on all kinds of things, tobacco, gas, liquor etc. From a purely legal standpoint, why should guns/ammo be excluded from special taxes?

So, let's see if I have this right..

You are okay with slapping a use fee on the exercise of a constitutionally delineated civil right?
How about  state trooper standing outside your church on Sunday to grab ten bucks before you can enter?

See Murdock v. Pennsylvania:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/105/case.html

4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.

5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.

[OutHouse]

I think the gun/ammo tax is ridiculous and ineffective, but why should it be illegal?

We have special taxes on all kinds of things, tobacco, gas, liquor etc. From a purely legal standpoint, why should guns/ammo be excluded from special taxes?

So, let's see if I have this right..

You are okay with slapping a use fee on the exercise of a constitutionally delineated civil right?
How about  state trooper standing outside your church on Sunday to grab ten bucks before you can enter?

See Murdock v. Pennsylvania:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/105/case.html

4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.

5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.

Dave Workman I think this tax is ridiculous as well but when you cite SCOTUS law you have to read the entire holding:

"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. Thus, it may not exact a license tax for the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce (McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Co., 309 U. S. 33, 309 U. S. 56-58), although it may tax the property used in, or the income derived from, that commerce, so long as those taxes are not discriminatory. Id., p. 309 U. S. 47, and cases cited."

Basically, you can't tax or charge money to exercise the right, but if the right involves sales or income then taxing it is often times perfectly legal.

[magnanimous_j]

I think the gun/ammo tax is ridiculous and ineffective, but why should it be illegal?

We have special taxes on all kinds of things, tobacco, gas, liquor etc. From a purely legal standpoint, why should guns/ammo be excluded from special taxes?

So, let's see if I have this right..

You are okay with slapping a use fee on the exercise of a constitutionally delineated civil right?
How about  state trooper standing outside your church on Sunday to grab ten bucks before you can enter?

See Murdock v. Pennsylvania:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/105/case.html

4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.

5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.

If you are correct, wouldn't the sales tax applied to guns and ammo already be unconstitutional?

Again, I don't agree with this tax in any way shape or form, but I don't think it's illegal. And I believe that we should approach this issues with total literal accuracy, as to not appear fanatical.

[Dave Workman]

I think the gun/ammo tax is ridiculous and ineffective, but why should it be illegal?

We have special taxes on all kinds of things, tobacco, gas, liquor etc. From a purely legal standpoint, why should guns/ammo be excluded from special taxes?

So, let's see if I have this right..

You are okay with slapping a use fee on the exercise of a constitutionally delineated civil right?
How about  state trooper standing outside your church on Sunday to grab ten bucks before you can enter?

See Murdock v. Pennsylvania:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/105/case.html

4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.

5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.

Dave Workman I think this tax is ridiculous as well but when you cite SCOTUS law you have to read the entire holding:

"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. Thus, it may not exact a license tax for the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce (McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Co., 309 U. S. 33, 309 U. S. 56-58), although it may tax the property used in, or the income derived from, that commerce, so long as those taxes are not discriminatory. Id., p. 309 U. S. 47, and cases cited."

Basically, you can't tax or charge money to exercise the right, but if the right involves sales or income then taxing it is often times perfectly legal.

But the tax IS "discriminatory" simply because it targets a specific class of people: gun owners and gun buyers. Nobody else is targeted by this tax. I read the entire holding years ago and it hasn't changed since.
That's not the point. This tax, according to the plaintiffs, is a violation of the state preemption act. But what Justice Douglas noted holds true today, you can't charge a tax on the exercise of a constitutional right, and that appears to be what this gun tax does.

[Oh Mah]

I disagree with this tax as well but it is legal.Example:You mention specific group of people being levied,well no different than people that drink being taxed for booze.Smokers taxed for smoke or smokeless. 

      This state is getting worse and worse every day.


THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECT DOES HOWEVER CLOUD THIS SOME WHAT.

[bigtex]

I think the gun/ammo tax is ridiculous and ineffective, but why should it be illegal?

We have special taxes on all kinds of things, tobacco, gas, liquor etc. From a purely legal standpoint, why should guns/ammo be excluded from special taxes?

So, let's see if I have this right..

You are okay with slapping a use fee on the exercise of a constitutionally delineated civil right?
How about  state trooper standing outside your church on Sunday to grab ten bucks before you can enter?

See Murdock v. Pennsylvania:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/105/case.html

4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.

5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.

Dave Workman I think this tax is ridiculous as well but when you cite SCOTUS law you have to read the entire holding:

"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. Thus, it may not exact a license tax for the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce (McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Co., 309 U. S. 33, 309 U. S. 56-58), although it may tax the property used in, or the income derived from, that commerce, so long as those taxes are not discriminatory. Id., p. 309 U. S. 47, and cases cited."

Basically, you can't tax or charge money to exercise the right, but if the right involves sales or income then taxing it is often times perfectly legal.

But the tax IS "discriminatory" simply because it targets a specific class of people: gun owners and gun buyers.

With your type of thinking then any tax is discriminatory because it targets a specific class of people. Income taxes targets those who work. Cigarette tax targets those who smoke. Gas tax targets those who drive. Etc.

[Dan-o]

I think there are two things at play here:
1.  Seattle has never seen a tax they didn't want.  The progressive Socialists are hooked on OPM (other people's money).
2.  Guns are an especially juicy target, and I'm sure that some of them would like to ratchet this tax up over time and use it to destroy the ability to get guns/ammo.

Daniel Webster had it right way back in the day.    You don't have to outlaw something if you can hike the tax high enough:

Daniel Webster (1782–1852)
QUOTATION:   The power to tax is the power to destroy.