11% tax where are we at in the lawsuit?

[Jimi Jah]

I bought 3 boxes of 22s since that tax passed. No guns. I buy out of state if I need anything.

 

[treelogger]

... CA taxing its own citizens in addition of the Fed tax runs afoul of the tax being applied fairly and equally.

If that argument were correct, then there could be no state or local taxes. But there are.

In reality, there is no hard and fast rule that taxes have to be fair or equal. For example, property taxes are very unequal: Prop 13 means that how much one pays depends crucially on when one bought the place. Parcel taxes differ widely between the districts that collect them, a few miles can make a $1000 a year difference. Parcel taxes can have exemptions, for example for unoccupied parcels, multiple contiguous parcels, or the elderly or those receiving SSI. Is that fair and equal? Then look at the income tax code, both federal and state: What's fair and equal about certain groups (married versus not married, kids or no kids, investments or wages, not even mentioning rich or poor ...) paying different tax rates?

 

[Route66ShootingSportsPark]

CA Gunners are mostly reliant on a secondary market if a resident wants to continually add firearms to their collection. An additional 11% for those who continually buy guns gets really steep, really fast, especially for the high end gun buyer. A gun shop purchase is a secondary choice, behind a PPT.

I sure hope that’s not the mindset as you'll kill the 2A market doing exactly what they wanted out of this bill. The bill arthur said they wanted to target gun purchasers and drive them out like they did with cigarettes.

 

[USMC06RET]

If that argument were correct, then there could be no state or local taxes. But there are.

In reality, there is no hard and fast rule that taxes have to be fair or equal. For example, property taxes are very unequal: Prop 13 means that how much one pays depends crucially on when one bought the place. Parcel taxes differ widely between the districts that collect them, a few miles can make a $1000 a year difference. Parcel taxes can have exemptions, for example for unoccupied parcels, multiple contiguous parcels, or the elderly or those receiving SSI. Is that fair and equal? Then look at the income tax code, both federal and state: What's fair and equal about certain groups (married versus not married, kids or no kids, investments or wages, not even mentioning rich or poor ...) paying different tax rates?

Without a doubt, the biggest taxation inequity is the income tax rate differences between earned income and investment income. That is an obscenity. The 11% excise tax isn't going away via the courts, only way that is going away will be through the ballot box. I'm just thankful they haven't applied it to private party transfers, yet.

 

[SLORNR]

I sure hope that’s not the mindset as you'll kill the 2A market doing exactly what they wanted out of this bill. The bill arthur said they wanted to target gun purchasers and drive them out like they did with cigarettes.

“Bill?” I’m pretty sure the 11% sin tax is now state law. I haven’t made myself a victim of it, but perhaps someone that has can verify its existence via personal experience.

My mindset is pointing out that this, and all anti gun laws passed are most certainly designed to kill the 2A rights of Californians, by making them unaffordable, and by squeezing as much as possible out of the sizable market that still exists in the state by virtue of its large population.

My mindset is to utilize the secondary market, or other legal means to avoid paying the 11% tax. There are millions upon millions of very fine guns that may potentially find their way onto the secondary market. My mindset is to shop there so that one doesn’t pay the state an additional 11% tax, that will most definitely be used against gun owners (to potentially take more gun rights away in the future). If one is buying a new gun from a dealer, that’s exactly what they are doing at this point.

 

[1911-CV]

.... If one is buying a new gun from a dealer, that’s exactly what they are doing at this point.

So if we don't support the gun stores they go out of business and the anti-2A forces win; if we do support the gun stores there is more money in the kitty and the anti-2A forces win?

The State has access to all our tax dollars for their misguided anti-2A fight. The (relative) pittance that comes in from the 11% tax isn't anything to them. While I agree that this and other laws "are most certainly designed to kill the 2A rights of Californians, by making them unaffordable", knuckling under and putting gun stores out of business does not seem like a sustainable approach.

 

[SLORNR]

So if we don't support the gun stores they go out of business and the anti-2A forces win; if we do support the gun stores there is more money in the kitty and the anti-2A forces win?

The State has access to all our tax dollars for their misguided anti-2A fight. The (relative) pittance that comes in from the 11% tax isn't anything to them. While I agree that this and other laws "are most certainly designed to kill the 2A rights of Californians, by making them unaffordable", knuckling under and putting gun stores out of business does not seem like a sustainable approach.

Gun stores have been dying a slow death in CA for decades, the ones that make it will remain transfer portals for the secondary market, and they will maintain other services aside from just selling new guns if they want to survive.

Buying new guns for many isn’t going away either. Some us just won’t pay the 11% tax and stick to PPT. New guns will be for the most wealthy among us. That is the direction this is going. And it is by design. Whether I like it or not is inconsequential.

 

[USMC06RET]

Gun stores have been dying a slow death in CA for decades, the ones that make it will remain transfer portals for the secondary market, and they will maintain other services aside from just selling new guns if they want to survive.

Buying new guns for many isn’t going away either. Some us just won’t pay the 11% tax and stick to PPT. New guns will be for the most wealthy among us. That is the direction this is going. And it is by design. Whether I like it or not is inconsequential.

Per Google Gemini:

In 2023, the states with the highest number of firearm sales were Texas, Florida, and California. These states consistently rank high due to their large populations and high rates of gun ownership.

Here's a more detailed look at the top states for gun sales in 2023:

1. Texas: 1,347,589 firearms sold.
2. Florida: 1,316,471 firearms sold.
3. California: 1,043,421 firearms sold.
4. Pennsylvania: 841,523 firearms sold.
5. Tennessee: 633,015 firearms sold.

These figures are based on National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) data, which is used to track firearm sales. It's worth noting that gun sales have been declining since the peak years of 2020 and 2021. While the overall trend is downward, certain states continue to see high sales numbers.

 

[TFA777]

If that argument were correct, then there could be no state or local taxes. But there are.

In reality, there is no hard and fast rule that taxes have to be fair or equal. For example, property taxes are very unequal: Prop 13 means that how much one pays depends crucially on when one bought the place. Parcel taxes differ widely between the districts that collect them, a few miles can make a $1000 a year difference. Parcel taxes can have exemptions, for example for unoccupied parcels, multiple contiguous parcels, or the elderly or those receiving SSI. Is that fair and equal? Then look at the income tax code, both federal and state: What's fair and equal about certain groups (married versus not married, kids or no kids, investments or wages, not even mentioning rich or poor ...) paying different tax rates?

No hard and fast rule, but for rights enshrined in the Constitution it cannot be SPECIFICALLY taxed. This includes 'accessories'. See Minneapolis Star Tribune SCOTUS case and Harper v Virginia.

So a general sales tax on ammo/guns is valid (cos anything you buy is subject to that tax), but the 11% tax (and arguably the background check fee for ammo) isn't.

 

[SLORNR]

No hard and fast rule, but for rights enshrined in the Constitution it cannot be SPECIFICALLY taxed. This includes 'accessories'. See Minneapolis Star Tribune SCOTUS case and Harper v Virginia.

So a general sales tax on ammo/guns is valid (cos anything you buy is subject to that tax), but the 11% tax (and arguably the background check fee for ammo) isn't.

The Constitution does not matter to the ninth circuit. That has been well established. And, The SCOTUS has no intention of weighing in on the anti 2A laws passed in CA. The State of California can do just about anything they want regarding the 2A, no one is going to stop them.

 

[Pythonfan]

The Constitution does not matter to the ninth circuit. That has been well established. And, The SCOTUS has no intention of weighing in on the anti 2A laws passed in CA. The State of California can do just about anything they want regarding the 2A, no one is going to stop them.

Now that you mention it, has the Supreme Court EVER taken a California firearms or 2a related case?

 

[Dvrjon]

I sure hope that’s not the mindset as you'll kill the 2A market doing exactly what they wanted out of this bill. The bill arthur said they wanted to target gun purchasers and drive them out like they did with cigarettes.

“Bill?” I’m pretty sure the 11% sin tax is now state law. I haven’t made myself a victim of it, but perhaps someone that has can verify its existence via personal experience.

Your snark is poorly placed.

While the law enacted through this bill has been codified and is in force, reference to the bill is accurate and appropriate in discussing what the legislature wanted (past tense) out of the bill. That’s essential when looking at legislative history and intent to determine what the legislature thought they were voting on when they discussed and voted on the bill.

If one is working in present tense and discussing the results of the bill’s enactment, then discussion of the statute comes to prominence. However, even discussion of the current statute in current state may be enhanced by knowing its genesis, at which time discussion of “the bill” is also appropriate.

 

[Hit Factor]

Now that you mention it, has the Supreme Court EVER taken a California firearms or 2a related case?

Fasten your seatbelt . . .

The Countdown Begins: Duncan v. Bonta Heads to SCOTUS - CRPA

Today marks the start of Countdown to Duncan — a pivotal week in the fight...

crpa.org

 

[treelogger]

No hard and fast rule, but for rights enshrined in the Constitution it cannot be SPECIFICALLY taxed. This includes 'accessories'. See Minneapolis Star Tribune SCOTUS case and Harper v Virginia.

So a general sales tax on ammo/guns is valid (cos anything you buy is subject to that tax), but the 11% tax (and arguably the background check fee for ammo) isn't.

Nonsense. If this were true, the federal 11% excise tax on guns and ammo would long have been overturned. Hint: It has not; it is nearly 100 years old now.

And the cases for taxes on paper and ink for newspapers are much more complex.

 

[treelogger]

Now that you mention it, has the Supreme Court EVER taken a California firearms or 2a related case?

How many 2A cases has the Supreme Court taken in the last 100 years? The major ones can be counted on the fingers of one or two hands: Miller, Heller, MacDonald, Bruen, Rahimi. Which did I forget?

 

[DB>)>]

Duncan has a certain potential advantage, having been GVR'd, and essentially the 9th gave SCOTUS the finger rather than re-examining the case based upon Bruen. The 9th is the most overturned circuit, and poking SCOTUS in the eye ought to bring a bias towards taking the case, rather than passing. Whether or not they take it, it is a NARROW question, one where there is a significant division among the circuit courts, and Benitiez set it up for SCOTUS review from the original decision... The entirely arbitrary ban at "10 rounds" should be sufficient to overturn a clearly ARBITRARY statute, but the recent introduction of "accoutrements/accessories" not being protected Constitutionally opens an additional can of worms.

SO, there is a chance to get another "pro-2A" opinion on whether mags can be discriminated upon depending on their capacity characteristic. AWB, that's another entirely different question. The 11% tax and ammo background check fees... two entirely DIFFERENT questions, and probably a decade out, based on how long Duncan has taken!

A right delayed is a right denied, and there certainly could/should be a faster path to judicial relief... Lawfare is a special tool/means the left uses to achieve ends that should not otherwise be attainable, and unless and until the Courts stop participating in this game, justice will continue to be delayed and far from swift...

It would be wonderful if there could be a cultural agreement as to what words plainly mean, but I've seen arguments among gun owners over those plainly written words... we have met the enemy, and they is us.

 

[USMC06RET]

SO, there is a chance to get another "pro-2A" opinion on whether mags can be discriminated upon depending on their capacity characteristic.

As of June 2025 SCOTUS declined to hear challenges to a number of firearms laws including the Rhode Island ban on LCMs. Justice Kagan granted another extension for application for certiorari in Duncan v. Bonta until 17 - 18 August 2025. It would be very surprising if they were to handle the LCM issue for California any differently than they handled it for Rhode Island.

See this link for more information. https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-gun-control-challenges/

 

[Pythonfan]

As of June 2025 SCOTUS declined to hear challenges to a number of firearms laws including the Rhode Island ban on LCMs. Justice Kagan granted another extension for application for certiorari in Duncan v. Bonta until 17 - 18 August 2025. It would be very surprising if they were to handle the LCM issue for California any differently than they handled it for Rhode Island.

See this link for more information. https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-gun-control-challenges/

After reading many of your posts recently, I am looking forward to you being "surprised".

 

[DB>)>]

As of June 2025 SCOTUS declined to hear challenges to a number of firearms laws including the Rhode Island ban on LCMs. Justice Kagan granted another extension for application for certiorari in Duncan v. Bonta until 17 - 18 August 2025. It would be very surprising if they were to handle the LCM issue for California any differently than they handled it for Rhode Island.

See this link for more information. https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-gun-control-challenges/

SCOTUS has been known to wait for the "right" case. There are aspects which us laymen don't always understand. They are familiar with Duncan, and the slap in the face by the 9th is pretty blatant. Benitez' opinion is well reasoned, the blathering bloviating of the 9th is an embarrassment. We are in a period where "sending a message" is important, I could see several of the Justices eager to do just that. R.I. would be a "little" message, vs. slapping CA, with the large population and the adjacent population of the 9th, would be far more influential. They GVR'd with the message to comply with Bruen, the 9th opined in total disregard of the instruction, SCOTUS would become meaningless if they bow to or ignore that sort of arrogance.

Of course they could always punt out of fear that the lunatic left would again call for violence (as "representatives" from CA seem so eager to do), due to the current "tone" of our divided country. There are MILLIONS of "LCMs" in common use across the country, and over a million came into CA during freedom week... a finding that they can simply be taken at the whim of the government will quite possibly awaken some people to the utility thereof. A modern day Lexington and Concord is not beyond question, and no doubt there is a desire not to be the match that lights things off.

We shall see if there is a willingness to boldly uphold the Constitution/Bill of Rights, or let it be crushed under the weight of fear and pandering politics.

 

[SLORNR]

SCOTUS has been known to wait for the "right" case. There are aspects which us laymen don't always understand. They are familiar with Duncan, and the slap in the face by the 9th is pretty blatant. Benitez' opinion is well reasoned, the blathering bloviating of the 9th is an embarrassment. We are in a period where "sending a message" is important, I could see several of the Justices eager to do just that. R.I. would be a "little" message, vs. slapping CA, with the large population and the adjacent population of the 9th, would be far more influential. They GVR'd with the message to comply with Bruen, the 9th opined in total disregard of the instruction, SCOTUS would become meaningless if they bow to or ignore that sort of arrogance.

Of course they could always punt out of fear that the lunatic left would again call for violence (as "representatives" from CA seem so eager to do), due to the current "tone" of our divided country. There are MILLIONS of "LCMs" in common use across the country, and over a million came into CA during freedom week... a finding that they can simply be taken at the whim of the government will quite possibly awaken some people to the utility thereof. A modern day Lexington and Concord is not beyond question, and no doubt there is a desire not to be the match that lights things off.

We shall see if there is a willingness to boldly uphold the Constitution/Bill of Rights, or let it be crushed under the weight of fear and pandering politics.

SCOTUS is already meaningless.

It is clear the nations highest court would rather sit it out rather than make and or enforce a ruling in regards to the 2A.

In the rare instance the SCOTUS does make a ruling, the lower courts simply ignore them and does what ever they want.

At the very least SCOTUS is feckless.