Newsom’s attempt to tax gun owners in California is coming under fire, as the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced a lawsuit to prevent the enforcement of the state’s new 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition. The lawsuit, filed in San Diego County Superior Court, argues that the tax violates the Second Amendment.
Brandon Combs, President of FPC, strongly condemned the tax, likening it to discriminatory measures from the past. “California’s unconstitutional and immoral gun tax is a modern Jim Crow law that targets people and rights hated by tyrants like Governor Gavin Newsom,” Combs stated. He emphasized that the Constitution protects against such political schemes.
The Second Amendment guarantees Americans the right to keep and bear arms, and the complaint warns that if this tax is permitted, it could lead to even higher taxes on other constitutional rights, such as the right to free exercise of religion.
The lawsuit sees the FPC joined by the National Rifle Association, the California Rifle and Pistol Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation, all of whom argue that the excise tax infringes upon fundamental rights.
Assembly Bill 28, which Governor Newsom signed into law in 2023, introduced the excise tax. The revenue generated from this tax is earmarked for gun violence prevention programs, including education, research, response, and investigation efforts aimed at reducing gun violence.
In response to the lawsuit, Newsom spokesman Daniel Villaseñor defended the tax, pointing out the high costs of gun violence. “The cost of gun violence far outweighs the cost of this tax. This is a modest investment in gun violence prevention programs that are proven to work,” Villaseñor said. He noted that California is ranked the top state for gun safety and stressed the importance of maintaining policies that save lives.
The debate over the tax highlights the ongoing conflict between gun rights advocates and proponents of stricter gun control measures. Supporters of the tax view it as a necessary step to combat gun violence, while opponents see it as an overreach infringing on constitutional rights.
As the lawsuit progresses, it will likely attract significant attention and could set a precedent for similar cases in other states. The outcome may impact future legislative efforts related to gun control and taxation. Federal law also imposes taxes on firearms and ammunition. The tax rates are 10% of the sale price of pistols and revolvers, and 11% of the sale price of firearms other than pistols and revolvers, as well as shells and cartridges. These rates are established under 26 USC Section 4181(a) and 27 CFR Section 53.61(a). Factors determining the liability for these taxes include the act of manufacture or importation, the identification of the manufacturer or importer, the taxable nature of the article, and its sale or use in a taxable manner. If the lawsuit reaches the Supreme Court and taxing firearms is ruled unconstitutional, ironically, this attempt at taxation could remove the federal tax.
Both sides of the debate are gearing up for a legal battle that could have far-reaching implications for gun policy in California and beyond. The court’s decision will be closely watched by advocates and opponents of gun control nationwide.
Newsom’s effort to impose this tax has now become a focal point in the broader national conversation about balancing gun control with Second Amendment rights. The ensuing legal struggle will undoubtedly shape the future landscape of gun legislation in the United States.
