With more and more states attempting to place “sin taxes” on the purchase of firearms and ammunition to fund other unconstitutional gun control initiatives, a U.S. Senator and a U.S. Representative have teamed up in an attempt to put an end to the travesty.
On Thursday, U.S. Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, and U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California, introduced the “Freedom from Unfair Gun Taxes Act,” a measure that would prohibit states from implementing excise taxes on firearms and ammunition to fund gun control programs.
“For years, extreme state policies and governors, including from my home state, have targeted the fundamental Second Amendment rights of our fellow Americans,” Issa said. “California’s new imposition of a ‘sin tax’ on firearms and ammunition equates a core constitutional freedom with gambling or drug use. Enough is enough. That’s why Sen. Risch and I are joining forces to introduce this key legislation and stop any state tax that seeks to raise the price of self-defense out of reach for any American.”
California’s new 11% percent excise tax on guns and ammo just went into effect on July 1. The additional tax effectively doubled the tax paid on gun and ammunition purchases in the state, putting the cost of lawful self-defense out of the reach of some citizens.
A number of other states, including Colorado, Vermont, New York, Massachusetts and Washington have proposed similar taxes.
“Democrats’ latest attack on the Second Amendment looks like an excessive excise tax to fund gun control initiatives,” Sen. Risch said. “The ‘Freedom from Unfair Gun Taxes Act’ ensures states do not place a significant financial burden on law-abiding gun owners to advance their anti-Second Amendment agenda.”
Risch and Issa were joined in introducing the legislation by Republican U.S. Senators Mike Crapo of Idaho, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, Steve Daines of Montana, Deb Fischer of Nebraska and Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi, and Republican Rep. Richard Hudson of North.
Announcement of the measure drew a positive response from several pro-freedom organizations that are actively involved in the battle to save the Second Amendment.
“States like California and others want to levy excise taxes on firearms and ammunition with the clear intent to punish law-abiding gun owners and dismantle the Second Amendment,” said Randy Kozuch, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). “Senator Risch’s bill would prevent these blatant and egregious attacks on the rights of Americans and the National Rifle Association is proud to support this legislation.”
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the firearms industry trade association, also voiced support for the newly filed legislation.
“State efforts to levy excise taxes on firearms and ammunition at the point of sale are placing significant financial barriers to the lawful exercise of Constitutionally-protected rights,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel. “More cravenly, these taxes are being used to fund special-interest efforts to further infringe on those rights. These excise taxes don’t reduce criminal misuse of firearms. The Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics own studies show 90 percent of felons convicted of using a firearm in their crimes illegally obtained those firearms.”
I knew the fanatical gun controllers would try this tactic, hoping to get around an challenge of direct infringement of the second amendment.
“The power to tax is the power to destroy”
Chief Justice John Marshall from the 1819 case McCulloch v. Maryland. No surprise here.
The SCOTUS has already forbidden this. ‘A state may not impose a charge (a tax) for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.’ (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 [1943]). Murdock was a First Amendment case, but since all rights secured by the Constitution have the same weight in the law, the same principle holds for the Second Amendment.
B.Zerker,
Excellent point. What probably makes more sense is for a plaintiff in the affected states to file a simple lawsuit in federal court–asking for summary judgement under the Murdock ruling. It seems like a slam-dunk to me.
Poll taxes are unconstitutional. Same thing here.
How about prohibiting fees for permits to purchase, own, or catry?
0% chance of being signed into law. Waste of taxpayer money to propose this law in this regime.
I came to post the same sentiment. This bill will never make it out of committee to a floor vote in the House, much less pass in the House, then pass in the Senate, and finally sale through the White House.
The only useful purpose such a bill could serve is showing who opposes our inalienable right to keep and bear arms for righteous self-defense. And in that regard, it doesn’t take a bunch of time and money to craft such a bill. Just make it fast and simple and throw it over the proverbial fence for anti-Second Amendment Representatives to choke on.
Really doesn’t cost much when you have a copy that you can adapt as needed…….not that we see such things from the fun ban bills ever.
Well I don’t see Cook county,ILLannoy changing anything. $25 slush fund er “violence tax” on handguns & suing a couple gunshops. Along with insanely high sales taxes(& property taxes). They likely accelerated the closure of 4 gunshops including Westforth & Blythes in Indiana and Borderline in Momence & another border shop in Steger,Ill. That and the illegal and unconstitutional ASSault weapons ban🙄😧
My ideal, proposed model firearm and ammunition sales tax scheme was passed by the West Virginia State Legislature and was signed into law by the Governor. Sales tax on all firearms ZERO, Sales tax on all ammunition ZERO. If you pay more come to West Virginia to vacation and buy them here!
“I will not comply” has to start somewhere. People just stop obeying stupid laws. Send letters to your governor, state reps, and your federal reps complaining, and telling them you will not comply. Anyone can drive out of state, make a private purchase, and drive back into state with their legally purchased property. No, of course you can’t purchase from a licensed dealer, but private purchases are still legal in the US of A. Since you have a hostile state and/or local government, just be sure that you don’t flaunt your legally owned property under the cop’s noses. Also, be careful that you don’t run afoul of “strawman” purchase laws. Better if you purchase an old firearm that the seller has owned for a few years, don’t buy a brand new gun that will look like a straw purchase. “I will not comply.”
I am not so sure that the federal government has the right to tell a state how much it can or cannot tax for any given purpose. I have to assume that this will be the first line of defense–“stay in your own lane.”
good luck getting this passed in dysfunctional Congress