California doubles taxes on guns and ammunition to pay for school security | Hacker News Reader

California doubles taxes on guns and ammunition to pay for school security

theguardian.com

35 pointsvinni259 comments

The school security enhancements are problematic. We are now looking at schools much like we look at prisons. Constant training on "code red" or "intruder" drills that simulate active shooter scenarios with students present. We are creating a culture of fear where even at school you could be attached and killed by a madman. Secured entryways .. fences... constant tracking of students of every metric imaginable.. always back to school "security".

Have any of these "code red" security upgrades prevented a school shooting event?

What kind of institution do we want our children to attend? What do we want them to learn?

I am all for safety in schools but are we responding to a real risk... or are we responding to more a culture of fear and political reaction?

What are the real risk to our children? Obesity? Diet. Exercise.. Social / emotional connections. Are we investing our tax money on the right things?

I agree. All of this security theater does nothing for safety and increases psychological issues, such as anxiety, in students. There is also a market for predatory companies who sell sham security solutions to the school districts.

> We are creating a culture of fear where even at school you could be attached and killed by a madman.

Welcome to America, where a person entering restaurant carrying a handgun is seen perfectly normal (I mean, if that's not the culture of fear, then what is? You're literally prepared to shoot back while having lunch?) but students not wanting to die in a mass shooting is met with derision and scorn.

Culture of fear, indeed.

Carrying a concealed handgun to a bar or restaurant is quite normal and there's nothing to fear, in fact, some establishments encourage it. I feel even more safe when people do. It's not a culture of fear and more so a culture of being prepared.

Sounds similar to airport security and the TSA. Maybe soon the government will create an “ESA Education Security Administration”?

> We are creating a culture of fear

from another hand society is cruel and violent, I am not confident where those kids will live when grow up: in safe gated condo community, or high crime area, so maybe teaching them how to handle danger is a good thing.

> society is cruel and violent

Which society?

Why does this happen only (mostly) in the US though?

That’s what we should be trying to solve instead of just endlessly escalating

Are we going to end up with militarized schools because we can’t address the real issues that create the violence in the first place?

> Why does this happen only (mostly) in the US though? > That’s what we should be trying to solve instead of just endlessly escalating

I think this culture consists of many components: culture of violence (movies, games), people accept it as given, aggressive capitalism and social segregation. It is hard to tell how much effort it will take to rebuild American society, and if it is achievable.

Have any of these "code red" security upgrades prevented a school shooting event?

How would we be able to know? They don't expect to arrest people on their way to a shooting. They expect that potential shooters will be scared off from even trying.

We do know that the number of shootings keeps going up. The culture of fear is caused by the fact that there's something to be afraid of. The odds are low but the consequences are horrific.

This is part of a longstanding effort by anti-groups to price people out of firearm ownership.

With this tax, gun owners in California will pay 11% + up to 10.75% general sales tax + 10%-11% federal excise tax. Maximum of 32.75% tax on a firearm.

But that's not all, since California has deliberately restricted the supply of handguns in the state by banning all new semiautomatic pistol models for the last 10 years (unless you purchase from a cop, then its legal because reasons), forcing manufacturers to make old, outdated California specific models, and extorting them for the "privilege" of keeping their handguns on the roster. California has also banned people from importing ammunition into the state, and implemented a mandatory ammunition background check system. It costs $20 to register, and $1 for each transaction.

Then there's local regulations, like San Jose's insurance requirement (which would not have covered a single incident in the last 7 years, but gun owners must buy anyway), and zoning regulations that prevent people from opening up gun stores.

Don't forget the DROS fees, ammo background check fees, and SB 2 which, in the words of the sponsor himself, generally only allows one to carry a concealed gun on some sidewalks. This effectively eviscerates our God-given right to carry a firearm.

Perhaps a little cynical of me but my first thought was how the timing of this new tax coincides with the upcoming rush of Californians buying regular sized mags again [0].

[0] https://reason.com/2023/09/24/californias-10-round-magazine-...

Assuming the 9th circuit allows it. Some companies are taking orders already, but they say they won't ship until the ten days are up. I can confirm however, that some companies have shipped magazines into California outside freedom-week in the past so I'd just order and see.

How much is doubled?

> The federal government already taxes the sale of guns and ammunition at either 10% or 11%, depending on the type of gun. The law Newsom signed adds another 11% tax on top of that

It went from 10% to 20% - which seems significant, your $500 shotgun now costs $600

I wonder if that’ll have any impact on shifting price points for firearms? Paying an extra hundred bucks in taxes feels like a lot to me. My guess is it would push people into a lower price point bracket across the board? e.g. if I would normally be looking for a $500 gun, I will now be looking for a $400 option?

> It went from 10% to 20% - which seems significant, your $500 shotgun now costs $600

I think you mean $550 to $600, since there was a 10% tax before.

For the most part, I think firearms purchases are fairly price inelastic; people know what they want, and are either viewing it as an investment or are purchasing it for fear that the government is going to regulate it later.

The enormous success of low cost manufacturers like PSA suggests that this is not true.

This is unconstitutional and will be struck down as such.

What makes it unconstitutional?

Edit: to the person that asked what makes poll taxes unconstitutional…that would be the amendment to the constitution that literally makes it unconstitutional.

It's a constitutionally recognized inalienable right. Try taxing every social media post and news paper article and see how that goes.

I have never heard of any federal court ruling the way you claim they will. There are MANY rights we have (to own property, to work, to access necessities to live, etc.) that are nonetheless taxed.

Property seems to be a special case. There has always been this taxation in America. It was never understood otherwise. If by working you mean income taxes. Well they had to pass an amendment to allow it. Again, the question of a arms sold in commerce being subject to a general sales tax is different than what this is. Which is a excise tax aimed at arms because the California legislature and governor hate our freedoms and are throwing shit at the wall to restrict, make acquisition and possession as difficult as possible to people from even trying.

Newspapers are taxed, though? As are megaphones, audio equipment, printers, …

They fall under general sales tax not a specific punitive tax for what they are.

Sugary drinks are taxed in many California cities, for no other reason than they contain sugar. Is that also unconstitutional by your logic?

Is a sugary drink a constitutionally enumerated inalienable right?

So, you're saying it's okay for government to tax things "specific[ally and] punitive[ly] for what they are," in a general sense? It's okay to add to the cost of buying sugary sodas and any other thing, unless it has a barrel and goes boom?

In what way are you not free to buy guns, ammo, &c when there is a tax on them?

Are you saying convicted (and possibly violent) felons should be able to buy guns?

and if so is sugar specifically singled out to be well regulated?

It's not and "well regulated" is not the operative part of the amendment. "Shall not be infringed" is.

It's all part of the text .. leaving out "well regulated (ie. trained responsible locals that can act as a unit, not village idiots with 3 DUI's and a couple of domestic violence charges) is 'infringing' on that right to have well drilled, well outfitted, well regulated, armed people.

You're just picking out the bits you like.

As I said in a sibling comment many pre-20th century commentators also omitted the prefratory clause. It was widely understood that the core right is an individual one. Please see this thread https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1645290263299117056

The first clause is just seen as flavor text, even the NRA leaves it out. It’s completely different from the same right in Switzerland, who rely on a well regulated militia for national defense. The USA hasn’t had those since the founding fathers were alive.

It states one of the purposes of the amendment. Many early commentator also omitted it when talking about the amendment.

> The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.

~ Thomas Cooley 1898 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645290273902305280

> The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people.

~ William Rawle 1825 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645290263299117056

> Mr. Eliot, of Massachusetts, who had charge of the bill in the House, moved an amendment to the seventh section by inserting as one of the rights to which negroes were entitled "the constitutional right to bear arms." Since the House adopted this amendment, which was also concurred in by the Senate, it is evident that the right to bear arms was regarded as one of the rights pertaining to citizens, and as this right is secured by the Second Amendment, it may reasonably be inferred that the other rights and privileges secured or enumerated by the first eight Amendments were also regarded as belonging to all persons.

> Horace Edgar Flack 1908 ~ The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645290276993527810

> The right of the people to keep and bear arms. object of this clause is to secure a well-armed militia. It has always been the policy of free governments to dispense, as far as possible, with standing armies, and to rely for their defence, both against foreign invasion and domestic turbulence, upon the militia. Regular armies have always been associated with despotism. But a militia would be useless unless the citizens were enabled to exercise themselves in the use of warlike weapons. To preserve this privilege, and to secure to the people the ability to oppose themselves in military force against the usurpations of government, as well as against enemies from without, that government is forbidden by any law or proceeding to invade or destroy the right to keep and bear arms.

~ John Norton Pomeroy 1868 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645290278520254464

These are a few excerpts from this longer thread https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1645290263299117056

I assume taxing news paper may be considered as limiting freedom of speech.

So why have existing taxes on guns and ammunition not been struck down?

Because they don't exist, other than the Pittman-Robertson Act. And nobody has ever challenged that act because the tax proceeds go to conservation, which hunters appreciate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Fede...

Because someone needs to challenge the law and pre-Bruen court acted like the 2A didn't exist.

> pre-Bruen court acted like the 2A didn't exist.

You mean, before Bruen the court acted like that first clause of the 2A was more than just flavor text.

Find me a gun control law the 9th circuit didn't consider too far. I'll wait.

I refer you to this thread[1] of dozens of sources that show the only pre-20th century view is the individual right view consistent with Heller, McDonald, and Bruen.

[1]https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1645290263299117056

I see. We’re just waiting on a case to be brought before a True Scotsman.

Money is speech. Therefore money should not be taxed. Checkmate liberals

The wording (obtuse, to me) of the second amendment to the United States constitution:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[0]

M-W Definition of infringe: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

My questions:

To what degree is it okay to increase profit (see list below) from the sale of firearms? 1) by the manufacturer? 2) by the government(s) that bears a burden of firearm misuse? 3) by the government(s) that provides for the infrastructure to make and distribute firearms?

[0] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/

The manufacturer is free to charge whatever he pleases for the product of his labor.

The government cannot in anyway restrict the peoples access to firearms nor artificially increase the price by specifically taxing the right. Since the right involves commerce, I see no issue in a general sales tax applying to it.

However, the government may not restrict an individual from manufacturing his own weapons and there may be no tax on those.

And what does "well regulated militia" mean?

Well regulated means armed and maintained. Militia means informal, non state sanctioned people with arms.

It certainly doesn’t mean well, regulated as in restricted, because nobody’s gonna say oh no, we’re being invaded thank God we have so many restrictions limiting the size of our weaponry to protect ourselves, the security of the state will definitely be preserved because we’re so well restricted, I mean regulated

is there a view that 2a targets not necessary security of the state, but security of people against state which decided to become despotic one day?

Yes this was the prevailing view pre-20th century. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1645290263299117056

I don’t see how you can come to any other conclusion

https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8

Militia in the language of the day refers to local level trained, drilled, responsible men that can fight as an organised unit to defend the local area against outsiders.

It doesn't mean that the village idiot gets a gun to threaten and start fights with.

You’re confounding the concepts of organized and unorganized militia. The US has both; the framing of “security of a free State” implies that the 2A is almost certainly referring to the former and not the latter.

(For why, understand that the framers themselves understood that a constitution cannot contain its own undoing, i.e. contain clauses that would allow the people to lawfully dismantle their own government. 2A interpretations that hinge on the individual’s right to overthrow a hypothetically tyrannical federal government fly in the face of this.)

> With arms in their hands, the people will not be likely to permit the overthrow of their institutions by the unscrupulous ambition of a civil magistrate or military chieftain. The very fact of their being armed will serve as a check to any arbitrary or forcible invasion of their constitutional rights.

~ Henry Flanders 1860 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645290303832858627

> Some tyrannical governments resort to disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, or participate in military parades. In all countries where despots rule with standing armies, the people are not allowed to keep guns and other warlike weapons.

~ Joseph Bartlett Burleigh 1852 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645292036277547009

> This provision is so plainly proper that its propriety need not be argued. It will be sufficient to contrast it with the practice of despotic governments, who, while they maintain large standing armies, at all times subservient to their pleasure, will not allow arms in the hands of the common people.

~ Rev. Daniel Parker 1848 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645292053784559616

> Right to Bear Arms - To deny the right of citizens to bear arms is a means employed by despotic rulers to enforce arbitrary government. Without such clause, ambitious men might, by the aid of the regular army, overthrow the liberties of the people.

~ Albert E Maltby 1909 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645293391234863105

A long thread of many sources: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1645290263299117056

This is a bizarre set of quotes. The fact that the 2A was consistently misunderstood by 19th century lawyers and men of letters isn’t evidence that the framers intended it to undermine their own document.

Put another way: someone equally interested in frivolous arguments about the 1A could surely dig up “common sense” opinions from the 19th century about how blasphemy, obscenity, &c. are all reasonably excluded from the franchise. But that doesn’t make them correct.

Show me the 19th century sources saying otherwise. If it is the correct opinion then it shouldn't be hard. You cannot just say that everyone who disagrees with you misunderstands the 2A. If your opinion is correct then surely someone wrote about it prior to the 20th century. The thread I linked has many many more quotes I highly recommend you look at.

This is why the Bruen opinion is so great. It uses the historical understanding approach. Which should be applied to the 1A as well.

No, I'm not going to play the Gish gallop slap-fight game over the wrong century.

Here's an example of the conservative AEI making essentially the same point[1]: that a constitutionally framed democratic sovereign cannot enshrine a right of revolution, even if the individual right of revolution is an inalienable one. This is basic political theory, whether you choose to take a historical approach or not.

[1]: https://www.aei.org/articles/is-there-an-american-right-of-r...

A take that seems to go deeper in a reasonable manner:

https://www.heritage.org/the-essential-second-amendment/the-...

https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8

There's nothing about it that makes it unconstitutional.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com