TexasCHLforum.com

I was going to put this in the political sub forum, but then saw this one.

Did anyone know this was coming? I searched for "Seattle gun tax" here and got nothing. And a judge has upheld this nonsense.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-seatt ... AV20151223

I also saw from this article that Chicago also has a gun tax. I wasn't aware of this one either. I guess it has held up under judicial review or is that also still winding it's way through the courts?

Under the new Seattle law, gun sellers will be taxed $25 for every gun sold plus 2 or 5 cent taxes on each round of ammunition.

And more from http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-new ... ition-tax/

I wonder if any of our wacko bird liberal cities here in Texas would try something like this?

Wouldn't a gun or ammo tax be the same as a poll tax?

Oregon and Washington are famous for using taxes to drive out businesses that they think don't fit in. That's one reason there economies suck so bad.

suthdj wrote:Wouldn't a gun or ammo tax be the same as a poll tax?

That's the first thing I thought about. I didn't understand how this was upheld in any court for that reason.

I think Texans, in general, are used to driving some distance to get the things they want, so even if some city put up a tax like that, that city would only hurt themselves. The business would move elsewhere, and the guns would still be sold.

K.Mooneyham wrote:I think Texans, in general, are used to driving some distance to get the things they want, so even if some city put up a tax like that, that city would only hurt themselves. The business would move elsewhere, and the guns would still be sold.

True, but isn't that the goal of the left? They don't really care about reducing violence. The real reason for doing this is to run the businesses out of town/state or just out of business.

So you buy your ammo online. Let them try to collect those taxes.

C-dub wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:I think Texans, in general, are used to driving some distance to get the things they want, so even if some city put up a tax like that, that city would only hurt themselves. The business would move elsewhere, and the guns would still be sold.

True, but isn't that the goal of the left? They don't really care about reducing violence. The real reason for doing this is to run the businesses out of town/state or just out of business.

I thought the goal was to make it harder for people to get guns and ammo. Some places, like NYC or San Francisco, I'm sure that's effective, but I just don't think it would be here in Texas.

It seems judges are very lenient when lawmakers call fees and penalties a tax.

That was the basis for Justice Roberts caving on the Obamacare penalties and fees. He saw them as a tax and thought that was ok.

Wouldn't surprise me if we don't get more gun control via tax. The legislators get more of what they want, money and control. The progressives get more control and limitations on one's rights.

Win win

suthdj wrote:Wouldn't a gun or ammo tax be the same as a poll tax?

Firearms and ammunition are already taxed (11%) at the federal level per the The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 aka Pittman-Robertson Act that was passed in 1937. It has been expanded to include archery and fishing tackle also. Evangelist Pat Robertson's father, Absalom Willis Robertson, was the co-writer of the bill. The funds began being misappropriated in violation of the original act, especially during Bill Clinton's presidency and the NRA led investigation instigated a bill to assure the funds would be used per the original intent.That's the Reader's Digest version. I don't know if the poll tax analogy would work, but maybe the state's pre-emption law will prevail in a higher court.

It won't matter in Seattle anyway. With the new $15.00 minimum wage law, nobody can afford ammo anyway.

The Annoyed Man wrote:It won't matter in Seattle anyway. With the new $15.00 minimum wage law, nobody can afford ammo anyway.

The people making $15.00 and hour can now.

twomillenium wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:It won't matter in Seattle anyway. With the new $15.00 minimum wage law, nobody can afford ammo anyway.

The people making $15.00 and hour can now.

No. They're protesting to work fewer hours, so they won't lose all their welfare/low income benefits.

It is bad precedent, and it would shot down at higher grade courts.

Beiruty wrote:It is bad precedent, and it would shot down at higher grade courts.

Yep just like gay marriage or how about obummer care. I just don't think it is a gimmee that SCOTUS does the right thing anymore. If it isn't overturned probably every city with a democratic mayor will try it. http://texaschlforum.com/posting.php?mo ... &p=1033237#