Tacoma City Council approves controversial gun tax

[M14 Shooter]

For example, in 2015 the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld as Constitutional the District’s $13 per firearm registration fee.

Look at you and your false equivalence.
When has the USSC upheld a tax laid with the intent to restrict the exercise of a right?
Why do you always have to lie to make a point?

 

[skews13]

So it begins

Tacoma City Council approves controversial gun tax
by Tammy Mutasa | KOMO News

Tuesday, November 12th 2019
Tacoma's City Council debated a controversial gun tax Nov. 12, 2019. (KOMO News)

TACOMA -- After three hours of intense and heated testimony from 112 people on both sides of the divisive issue, the Tacoma City Council passed a controversial plan to tax guns and ammunition.

Council leaders passed the gun and ammo tax with the caveat that it won't go into effect until July 2020.

The tax adds $25 to each gun sold, plus an extra two to five cents for each bullet, depending on size.

There was an amendment to slash the price of the tax in half, but it was withdrawn.

Council members said the money is for programs to prevent gun violence which has gone up 37% in Tacoma between 2014 to 2018. A total of 22 people have been murdered in Tacoma so far this year; 19 deaths involved guns.

However, folks against the tax say it would punish law abiding citizens who won't be able to afford to protect themselves.

Gun shop owners and manufacturers like Aero Precision said they will be forced out of town.

"There is a scheme here to impose a tax on the exercise of the Second Amendment," said one speaker against the tax. "Shame on you, shame on you. You're wrong, you know you're wrong, and to hell with you."

Tacoma's City Council considered a tax on guns Nov. 12, 2019. (KOMO News)
"The only way to reduce gun violence is to enforce the laws that are currently on the books,” said another speaker against the tax.

"We need to discourage the purchase of guns and ammunition. That is an answer,” countered another speaker who favored tax.

From now until July, city leaders said they will meet with community groups to figure out how to spend the money and see what, if anything, can be changed before the tax is implemented.

City leaders said there is an option to repeal the tax if it has negative effects on the community.

Tacoma City Council approves controversial gun tax​

First thing that comes to mine here is, if somebody "can't protect themselves" because they can't afford a $25 gun tax, then they must not have anything worth protecting in the first place.


Chris Rock had the right idea

​

Yeah we know how little life means to the left.

Yeah, because when people think about life, the first thought that pops into their head is a gun.

Do you see why you people are not, and will not ever be taken seriously?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Hopefully this will get challenged and go to court.
Specialized taxes on constitutional rights? Fuck that

The Second Amendment Foundation in Bellevue, Washington is usually all over this kind of legislation but I haven't heard anything from them concerning this.

Hopefully they'll challenge it. Washington state has a law that states that local municpalities, cities, etc. can not pass laws that are more stringent than state law:

Washington state firearm preemption law
There is state preemption over all laws relating to handguns and long guns. No law is allowed to be more restrictive than the state law. Local authorities cannot ban firearms from state parks but can place certain restrictions as outlined in RCW 9.41.300 on other areas.
-------------------------------------------
Washington: Court Upholds State Preemption in Legal Victory for NRA & SAF

On October 18th [2019], law-abiding gun owners won a major victory when the Washington Superior Court granted a motion for summary judgment against the City of Edmonds for violating the state’s preemption statute. This win invalidates the mandatory firearm storage ordinance passed by the City Council, and constitutes a victory for freedom and the Second Amendment.

This ordinance struck down by the court was passed by the City Council in clear violation of Washington's state preemption statute and undeniably interfered with the right of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves in their homes. The NRA & SAF also filed a lawsuit against the City of Seattle for passing a similar ordinance, which is now under review at the state Court of Appeals.

This ordinance and those like it would restrict self-defense by making it illegal for individuals to keep firearms in a private residence unless the firearms are kept in a "locked container." Under this vague standard, non-compliant storage was subject to a fine of up to $10,000. This scheme was nothing short of an invasion of private property rights for the purpose of undermining our Second Amendment freedoms.

Washington State’s preemption statute was passed in 1983 to maintain consistency of firearm and ammunition laws throughout the state. The State Legislature retained full authority to regulate and create laws pertaining to firearms and ammunition to ensure such consistency. Second Amendment rights are guaranteed to all citizens, regardless of where they reside. The City of Edmonds’ ordinance is exactly the type of legislation the state preemption statute was designed to guard against.

We applaud the court for upholding the rights of Washington’s law-abiding gun owners, and will continue to fight for your Second Amendment rights. Please stay tuned to www.nraila.org and your email inbox for further updates on the Evergreen State.

​

“…but I haven't heard anything from them concerning this.”

Likely because they know any such challenge would be pointless.

You quoted the above but missed the rest of my comment where I quoted a news article about one of their victories just last month in Washington State?

You should read up on them, they have accomplished a lot when it comes to defending the rights of lawful gun owners. They joined with the NRA in filing a lawsuit back after hurrican Katrina decimated parts of New Orleans and the police department confiscated the guns of residents who refused to abandon their property for fear of roving bands of looters. They were the only ones who were successful in getting the court to order the return of the firearms which were ruled to have been unconstitutionally confiscated.

The response was to the thread premise, the enactment of a gun tax, and the likely reason why no challenge as been made to that tax.

Again, taxing guns in no manner violates the Second Amendment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Again, taxing guns in no manner violates the Second Amendment.

Your statement, above, is a lie.
Why do you need to lie to make a point?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Hopefully this will get challenged and go to court.
Specialized taxes on constitutional rights? Fuck that

The Second Amendment Foundation in Bellevue, Washington is usually all over this kind of legislation but I haven't heard anything from them concerning this.

Hopefully they'll challenge it. Washington state has a law that states that local municpalities, cities, etc. can not pass laws that are more stringent than state law:

Washington state firearm preemption law
There is state preemption over all laws relating to handguns and long guns. No law is allowed to be more restrictive than the state law. Local authorities cannot ban firearms from state parks but can place certain restrictions as outlined in RCW 9.41.300 on other areas.
-------------------------------------------
Washington: Court Upholds State Preemption in Legal Victory for NRA & SAF

On October 18th [2019], law-abiding gun owners won a major victory when the Washington Superior Court granted a motion for summary judgment against the City of Edmonds for violating the state’s preemption statute. This win invalidates the mandatory firearm storage ordinance passed by the City Council, and constitutes a victory for freedom and the Second Amendment.

This ordinance struck down by the court was passed by the City Council in clear violation of Washington's state preemption statute and undeniably interfered with the right of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves in their homes. The NRA & SAF also filed a lawsuit against the City of Seattle for passing a similar ordinance, which is now under review at the state Court of Appeals.

This ordinance and those like it would restrict self-defense by making it illegal for individuals to keep firearms in a private residence unless the firearms are kept in a "locked container." Under this vague standard, non-compliant storage was subject to a fine of up to $10,000. This scheme was nothing short of an invasion of private property rights for the purpose of undermining our Second Amendment freedoms.

Washington State’s preemption statute was passed in 1983 to maintain consistency of firearm and ammunition laws throughout the state. The State Legislature retained full authority to regulate and create laws pertaining to firearms and ammunition to ensure such consistency. Second Amendment rights are guaranteed to all citizens, regardless of where they reside. The City of Edmonds’ ordinance is exactly the type of legislation the state preemption statute was designed to guard against.

We applaud the court for upholding the rights of Washington’s law-abiding gun owners, and will continue to fight for your Second Amendment rights. Please stay tuned to www.nraila.org and your email inbox for further updates on the Evergreen State.

​

“…but I haven't heard anything from them concerning this.”

Likely because they know any such challenge would be pointless.

You quoted the above but missed the rest of my comment where I quoted a news article about one of their victories just last month in Washington State?

You should read up on them, they have accomplished a lot when it comes to defending the rights of lawful gun owners. They joined with the NRA in filing a lawsuit back after hurrican Katrina decimated parts of New Orleans and the police department confiscated the guns of residents who refused to abandon their property for fear of roving bands of looters. They were the only ones who were successful in getting the court to order the return of the firearms which were ruled to have been unconstitutionally confiscated.

The response was to the thread premise, the enactment of a gun tax, and the likely reason why no challenge as been made to that tax.

Again, taxing guns in no manner violates the Second Amendment.

I was just reading about the concept of a bill of attainder because it was mentioned as their argument in the news reporting of the ruling against Trump keeping his tax returns private. Would you mind explaining the difference between a bill of attainder and a tax which only targets a specific segment of society for "punishment" which in this case are gun owners and firearm business owners?

Bill of Attainder

Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

"The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).

"These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

Supreme Court cases construing the Bill of Attainder clause include:

• Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wallace 333 (1866).
• Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wallace 277 (1866).
• U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965).
• Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S.425 (1977).
• Selective Service Administration v. Minnesota PIRG, 468 U.S. 841 (1984).

See also, SBC v. FCC.​