Seattle Gun Violence Tax Upheld

ItsATaxLower courts in urban centers tend to be corrupt, arbitrary, and often have a lack of concern about the rule of law, so it’s not too surprising to see that a lower court upheld Seattle’s gun tax despite Washington State’s strong preemption language. We’ll see how this works out on appeal. We’ve been mooching off a lot of past activism by people who worked very hard on this issue. It’s hard to imagine the Washington Legislature offering a fix for this if it doesn’t turn out well in the courts. It’s always going to be the most important election ever, until the tide actually does turn, and we all end up drowned in it. I fear that’s starting to happen.

9 thoughts on “Seattle Gun Violence Tax Upheld”

  1. Given the language of WA preemption, for this tax to pass muster there needs to be a state law specifically authorizing local firearm taxes. It really blows my mind how a judge’s feelings are allowed to overrule the law.

  2. Which means…

    //It’s not an assault weapon ban! It’s just a tax on guns that we classify as assault weapons.

    And to keep track of compliance we’ll have to register them//

    Gee where have we heard *that* before.

  3. Remember that 500% tax on ammo obama wanted in 2008? Guess what. Coming soon to a county near you. And held up by the courts. And then refused to be heard by scotus.

    How about a 1,000% tax on any semi automatic rifle. Again the courts would uphold it in full or not hear it. Or maybe when you buy a gun that they should have something like CA does with there $25 DROS fee. Only make it $500,000 or maybe $2,000,000. Again the courts would uphold it in full or not hear the case. Even SCOTUS.

    Get the idea. The 2nd ammendment is now dead. They will simply make some kind of law to make it stupid expensive call it a “tax” and “tax” it out of existence.

    Just think. When hilary is sworn in next year she will make that 500% tax on ammo law by EO.

    1. Just take a peak at the NFA.

      That had registration *and* punitive taxes.

      Just consider what $200 was in 1930’s money.

      (As a bonus Pistols were originally intended to be NFA items, but would /graciously/ be in the $5 bracket… for transfers, might still have had $200 tax on creation).

  4. We need to use more rights oriented case law in our favor: why is a right to bear arms any different than voting, religion, or speach? Just because the 2A is unpopular at the time, makes it no less deserving of protection, and making the link at state and federal levels is essential. For example, Murdock v. PA. from 1943, where they tried to tax the people giving out religious literature for a donation. In that case the court ruled, ‘ A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.’ Here’s a quick read:

    I agree the Supreme Court will continue to avoid taking on 2A cases, but as opposing verdicts pile up in circuit courts they will eventually force action.

    1. Just because the 2A is unpopular at the time, makes it no less deserving of protection….

      You could easily argue that the temporal unpopularity of the right makes it more deserving of protection, not less. That’s why the Bill of Rights was written and ratified in the first place; to ensure that our fundamental rights are not voted away by majority opinion.

    2. We’ve argued that in lower courts, but the lower courts still insist on making the Second Amendment a second-class right.

Comments are closed.