Gun rights groups on Tuesday filed a Second Amendment challenge to a new California law that imposes additional taxes on gun and ammunition sales in an effort to reduce gun violence.
The Gun Policy Alliance said it filed the lawsuit in San Diego County Superior Court on behalf of its members. Other plaintiffs include the National Rifle Association and the California Rifle and Pistol Association. and the Second Amendment Foundation.
The new tax law (Assembly Bill 28), which came into effect on Monday, imposes an 11% excise tax on the sale of firearms, firearms parts and ammunition. It is expected to raise $159 million in the first year to fund state gun violence prevention and gang intervention programs.
The complaint seeks to block the new law, saying the excise tax violates the Second Amendment because it is a special tax on gun owners. It notes that the U.S. Supreme Court has “repeatedly held that constitutional rights cannot be separately taxed.”
“California is effectively seeking the power to undermine the exercise of constitutional rights by imposing a special tax on them,” the complaint reads. “If this tax is allowed, there is nothing to prevent California from imposing a tax it disapproves of.” There is a constitutional right to tax 50% or even 100% – whether it is the right to keep and bear arms, the right to freely exercise one’s religion, or any other right.
The California Department of Revenue and Taxation, the defendant in the case, said it would not comment on pending litigation.
“Gun taxes are a modern-day racial segregation law that targets the people and rights that tyrants like Governor Gavin Newsom hate,” said Gun Policy Alliance President Brandon Combs.
“California’s gun excise tax is a blatant and egregious attack on the rights of Californians and an orchestrated effort to dismantle the Second Amendment,” said Randy Kozuch, executive director of the NRA’s Legislative Action Institute. strategy.
Daniel Villaseñor, a spokesman for the governor’s office, said the cost of gun violence far outweighs the cost of tax revenue.
“This is a modest investment in gun violence prevention programs that is proven to be effective,” he said. “There’s a reason California is rated the No. 1 gun safety state — and we won’t give up on defending common-sense policies like these that help save lives.”
The lawsuit was also filed on behalf of two gun owners: San Diego County resident Danielle Jaymes and Orange County resident Joshua Gerken.
“These are people who are probably members of all the associations and are also plaintiffs,” said CD Michel, the plaintiffs’ attorney.
Hours after the law took effect on July 1, the duo purchased mostly ammunition for training and self-defense purposes, the complaint alleges.
Jaymes also planned to purchase a handgun — a Sig Sauer P365 XMacro, a subcompact semi-automatic handgun — but delayed the purchase because the tax increased the cost, the lawsuit said. She is now saving up to buy it.
“Multiple Sclerosis. If the price doesn’t increase by 11%, Jaymes will be purchasing this pistol in the next few weeks.
Gerken, a member of the National Rifle Association who occasionally works as a firearms instructor at a local shooting range, said he purchases ammunition once a month but may have to reduce the amount he buys because of the new tax, the complaint said.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a Second Amendment challenge to an Illinois state law banning the sale of rapid-fire assault weapons. If the court grants the appeal, it would also threaten California’s longstanding ban on most rapid-fire assault rifles.
The judge’s decision means lawsuits challenging the Illinois ban will continue in lower courts.
Separately, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco is considering a Second Amendment challenge to California’s assault weapons ban. A federal judge in San Diego last year declared the ban unconstitutional, saying the assault rifles were “commonly owned and possessed for lawful purposes,” and the Ninth Circuit agreed to hear the state’s appeal.
