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.

[Bob33]

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.

Besides a source of income, taxes are one of a government's best tools to discourage and encourage certain behaviors, which is why a flat tax will never happen.

[pianoman9701]

Why is this in OT instead of Outdoor Advocacy?

[pianoman9701]

I think it could be successfully argued that the tax deprives lower income Seattle residents of their Constitutionally  protected right to acquire firearms and ammo because it forced most dealers to either move or stop selling firearms, thus leaving those with limited transportation options unable to purchase a firearm to protect themselves and their families.  This also seems like it could be attacked as economic discrimination.

[Fl0und3rz]

Why is this in OT instead of Outdoor Advocacy?

Hit the report to mod and have them move it. DW always posts his stuff in OT but probably shouldn't.

[Bob33]

Why is this in OT instead of Outdoor Advocacy?

Hit the report to mod and have them move it. DW always posts his stuff in OT but probably shouldn't.

[jmscon]

It's a bs tax, it's not going to discourage people from buying guns, it's not going to raise very much money to help stop any gun violence. It probably cost more for the accounting than it raises each year.

It doesn't keep people from buying a gun outside of the city limits and exercising their constitutional right to bare arms within the city. And, unfortunately, if you can afford to buy a $100 gun you can pay for a $2.50 bus ride out of town.

Don't get me wrong I think it's a bs law and I won't be buying guns in this city anymore but I don't think the tax will be going anywhere anytime soon.

Maybe the scotus will hear it but I'm not holding my breath.

[Bob33]

It does nothing to reduce gun violence. It does hurt the pro-gun employees and owners of Seattle businesses like Outdoor Emporium. I'll go out of my way to support them through the purchase of non-firearms products, or even paying a bit more for firearms products. Screw the City leaders.

[jmscon]

It does nothing to reduce gun violence. It does hurt the pro-gun employees and owners of Seattle businesses like Outdoor Emporium. I'll go out of my way to support them through the purchase of non-firearms products, or even paying a bit more for firearms products. Screw the City leaders.

I go to Outdoor Emporium all the time and go out of my way to do so but won't be buying any guns or ammo from them (don't forget that there is an extra tax on ammo too!). I get all of my fishing and hunting gear from them.

[Dave Workman]

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?

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.

"My type of thinking?"
There is no constitutionally delineated right to light up a cigarette or drive a car. Or work, for that matter. I'm sure some clever fellow can find some way to get those activities into the Bill of Rights, of course.

But this tax runs up against state preemption.
There is something else here too. It sets a rather dangerous precedent as others have pointed out.
If Seattle can get away with this, other municipalities will do it, likewise. And that could be a real headache for preemption, not to mention all the gun owners in the state. Of course, you can say I'm mistaken, you can claim I've lost my marbles.
Yes, we have a tax on firearms and ammunition. That's a federal excise tax, the Pittman-Robertson fund that is a dedicated fund for wildlife conservation and restoration. 
We're talking about a "local" (not even a state) tax that actually targets firearms and ammunition retailers.  I suspect you could launch quite a discussion about that among lawyers.

We're all apparently agreed that the tax sucks. But I sense some of you are satisfied to leave it at that and tomorrow you'll grumble about something else.

But I was at the gun show in Puyallup yesterday and chatted with quite a few folks about this. They're waking up to the fact that elections matter and that includes state supreme court races. I'm not sure what will come out of this but I am more certain now than ever that there are complainers and there are doers.

I also talked to Mike Coombs, owner of the Outdoor Emporium the other day. He's one of the plaintiffs in the tax case (not to be mixed up with my case against Seattle for a PRA violation for not disclosing the tax revenue figures I requested in my job as a working journalist; the attorneys won that case, BTW, about ten days ago) and he is seriously considering moving his gun and ammo sales to a location east of Lake Washington. If he can find the space (5,00 - 8,000 sq. ft. I think he mentioned) my guess is that he will be setting up shop there.

And then what? Well, the city maintains that this was not a gun control issue, a story that seems ludicrous considering the revelations in discovery of emails and notes that were obtained by the plaintiffs. Tim Burgess told KOMO the other day that if the gun stores moved out of town, he would be OK with that.

So this, in my perspective, does boil down to the exercise of animosity to drive guns and ammunition sales out of the city. That's probably restraint of trade, which is a big no-no, even when it comes to firearms.

[Dave Workman]

Seattle ‘Gun Tax’ Dud Confirmed; $103K Total Take
 
The City of Seattle on Monday afternoon confirmed what had long been suspected by Second Amendment advocates, that their so-called “gun violence tax” had pulled in far less than originally projected, a total of $103,766.22 for all of 2016.
 
http://libertyparkpress.com/seattle-gun-tax-dud-confirmed-103k-total-take/
 


Speaking of "sucks"   

 

[Special T]

I think a poll tax is a better comparison to this gun tax.

[Fl0und3rz]

$100K?

That probably doesn't even cover the cost to administer the program to collect the tax.

[Dave Workman]

$100K?

That probably doesn't even cover the cost to administer the program to collect the tax.

Well, my guess is that it certainly didn't cover the attorney's fees, the loss of B&O tax revenue, the fine/penalty and the man-hours of city employees to work on this thing.

Meanwhile, the Arizona Supremes got it right:

Arizona Supremes Tell Local Governments ‘No’ on Local Gun Laws

One week to the day after the Washington State Supreme Court okayed Seattle’s so-called “gun violence tax” despite the Evergreen State’s 34-year-old preemption law governing firearms regulation, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that “cities, towns and counties have no right to enact their own gun regulations,” the Arizona Daily Sun is reporting.

http://libertyparkpress.com/arizona-supremes-tell-local-governments-no-local-gun-laws/

[csaaphill]

No words. yeah was reading about this on other sites just sucks.

[acnewman55]

I subscribe to emails from the WA Alliance for "Gun Responsibility" just because I'm interested to hear their spin.

They're talking about carry reciprocity and how that's going to put more guns "on the streets".

Their entire campaign is constant fear mongering about how us gun owners are always lurking around the corner waiting to kill the defenseless urban cat ladies that keeps these organization alive.

Spreading blatant lies... smh


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dave Workman]

I subscribe to emails from the WA Alliance for "Gun Responsibility" just because I'm interested to hear their spin.

They're talking about carry reciprocity and how that's going to put more guns "on the streets".

Their entire campaign is constant fear mongering about how us gun owners are always lurking around the corner waiting to kill the defenseless urban cat ladies that keeps these organization alive.

Spreading blatant lies... smh

Blatant lies? Yeah, that's one way to put it.

History tells us of an advocate of the "big lie." Tell a big lie often enough and for many people it becomes the truth.

[Ebell]

Saw this on  MyNorthwest.com today.  If this candidate wins, they'll fit in perfectly.   I love it when folks keep thowing money at a problem.  I hope the link works.


http://mynorthwest.com/727702/council-candidate-wants-to-increase-seattles-tax-on-guns/

[Fl0und3rz]

Perfect illustration of "the power to tax is the power to destroy."  You shall not exercise your constitutional right in their utopia, prole.

[huntnphool]

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.

I believe that we should approach this issues with total literal accuracy, as to not appear fanatical.

How convieninet and liberal of you, where was this argument when discussing the 9th Circuits travel ban decision?

[Dave Workman]

Seattle Council Candidate Grant Wants to Double ‘Gun Violence Tax’
 
One of the candidates running to fill the Seattle City Council seat being vacated by Tim Burgess, who pushed through the city’s “gun violence tax,” is proposing to double that tax to raise revenue not realized during the first year it was assessed, a move predicted by Washington state’s leading gun rights advocate.
 
http://libertyparkpress.com/seattle-council-candidate-grant-wants-double-gun-violence-tax/