18+ Content Warning

By clicking Enter, you confirm you are 18 years of age or older and agree to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws.

Notice: Any content or member activity - including anything you may buy, sell, transfer, or discuss - must comply with current and upcoming laws.

Members are encouraged to stay informed: California Firearm Laws: 2026 Outlook & 2025 Recap . Responsibility for compliance rests solely with the individual member.

caguns.net

Welcome to CAguns.net!
Join our growing community where you can ask questions, share knowledge, or browse our classifieds section.

Sign up for a free account today and unlock full access! Once registered, you can search, post, and take advantage of exclusive features unavailable to guests.

A note on why more of the site now requires an account: automated scrapers and AI systems have been crawling our forums and classifieds at a scale. Requiring sign-in for those sections is the most effective tool we have. It takes a minute to register, it's free, and it keeps what happens here between actual members.

New to California gun ownership or trying to keep up with the changing laws? Check out our sister site CA2A.com — free courses, plain-English legal updates, and step-by-step guides built for California owners.

Advanced features are available only to registered members. Register today!

Where are we with the 11% tax?

MattB

Well-known member
Messages
186
Classified ads
2
I haven’t seen any updates on this lately - is there any movement on getting California’s outrageous 11% gun tax struck down? And if it is struck down as it should be, would we get our money back?
 
I haven’t seen any updates on this lately - is there any movement on getting California’s outrageous 11% gun tax struck down? And if it is struck down as it should be, would we get our money back?

If only hahahahaha. Even if it does get struck down, the money we spent as punishment for being gun owners has already been used by Sacramento to find other ways of 💩ting on us
 
This tax will stay forever and possibly increased every few years. It is very difficult to challenge this tax due to the Pittman-Robertson hunter tax precedent.
 
This tax will stay forever and possibly increased every few years. It is very difficult to challenge this tax due to the Pittman-Robertson hunter tax precedent.
That’s a federal tax, though, isn’t it? This is a state action that is clearly designed to be vindictive and to make exercise of a right more expensive. Pittman Robertson at least appears to benefit the people paying the tax. Sacramento’s efforts to make firearms ownership prohibitively expensive do not benefit me. I’m not a lawyer, but what right does a state have to tax the exercise of a right enumerated in the constitution? How is it not comparable to a poll tax?

Either way, I hate this state and can’t wait to leave. It should be the best place in the country to live, but it’s absolutely ruined by the way the majority of people vote here.
 
If only hahahahaha. Even if it does get struck down, the money we spent as punishment for being gun owners has already been used by Sacramento to find other ways of 💩ting on us
Lucky for me I haven’t paid it. I’ve only bought PPT since its implementation.
 
Do I sound like I’m joking? If a tax is declared unconstitutional, the state should be forced to refund the money they took.
Even if that best case scenario actually happens, there is no way that people are getting their money back from the state
 
Do I sound like I’m joking? If a tax is declared unconstitutional, the state should be forced to refund the money they took.
If the tax is found unconstitutional, there may be a path for retailers (who are the technical taxpayers) to seek refunds for the taxes they paid. IMO, it's unlikely these refunds would ever reach individual consumers who paid higher prices because of the tax.
 
Exercising 2nd admendment rights here has an admission price.

The 1st does not. The 1st doesn't have that "shall not be infringed" part, the 2nd does.

Maybe our respected SC will clarify that conundrum some day?
 
Exercising 2nd admendment rights here has an admission price.

The 1st does not. The 1st doesn't have that "shall not be infringed" part, the 2nd does.

Maybe our respected SC will clarify that conundrum some day?

The 1st has always had a price when what you say, write or broadcast is unpopular, especially today.
 
Back
Top Bottom