[HN Gopher] California doubles taxes on guns and ammunition to p...
___________________________________________________________________
California doubles taxes on guns and ammunition to pay for school
security
Author : vinni2
Score : 11 points
Date : 2023-09-26 21:45 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| agensaequivocum wrote:
| This is unconstitutional and will be struck down as such.
| bandyaboot wrote:
| What 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]
| agensaequivocum wrote:
| It's a constitutionally recognized inalienable right. Try
| taxing every social media post and news paper article and see
| how that goes.
| bandyaboot wrote:
| So why have existing taxes on guns and ammunition not been
| struck down?
| agensaequivocum wrote:
| Because someone needs to challenge the law and pre-Bruen
| court acted like the 2A didn't exist.
| bandyaboot wrote:
| I see. We're just waiting on a case to be brought before
| a True Scotsman.
| RoyalHenOil wrote:
| I 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.
| rbetts wrote:
| Newspapers are taxed, though? As are megaphones, audio
| equipment, printers, ...
| keep_reading wrote:
| Money is speech. Therefore money should not be taxed.
| Checkmate liberals
| meristohm wrote:
| The 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/
| smithcoin wrote:
| Perhaps 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-...
| mock-possum wrote:
| How 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 wrote:
| For 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 wrote:
| The enormous success of low cost manufacturers like PSA
| suggests that this is not true.
| daniel-cussen wrote:
| [dead]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-26 23:01 UTC)