Ammo For Sale

« « Why are anti-gun activists so violent? | Home | Gun Porn » »

But of course

Seattle passed their silly tax on gun violence. They claimed the tax would generate 300-500K. Yeah, not so much.

3 Responses to “But of course”

  1. JTC Says:

    No surprise that anything emanating from northern northern kalifornia is all about feelings and symbolism, not substance…and if they have to spend every dime other people have to validate it, so be it.

    But I’ll tell you what John P. Richardson just did though; I’ve several times made it known how wrong it is for “our” side to adopt the nasty negative anthropomorphizing of our tools and toys in any context. But I’m a changed man in that regards.

    “gun violence” (sic)

    Love it. Completely reverses and mocks the intent of that term. And henceforth I will use it whenever the opportunity presents itself.

  2. Alien Says:

    Hmmm….Sodo’s appears to have an easy solution to the problem: simply use their store outside the city limits to sell firearms. I’m guessing they could keep firearms on display at the in-city store, just not sell any there; feel free to peruse, handle, examine, but money changes hands only outside the city.

    And, there’s the internet. And, based on the numbers in the link, about 20% of the total came from gun dealers other than Sodo’s, so there may be an opportunity to create a sort of “gun dealers’ emporium” outside the city’s jurisdiction where shops are clustered.

    The positive is reducing the money that goes to the city government, which undoubtedly will be used in some fashion against gun owners because Seattle. The negative is it proves a jurisdiction can force lawful businesses out by imposing a tax.

    I’m still of the mind, however, that Seattle’s actions are unconstitutional in that excesive taxation constitutes an unreasonable burden on the exercise of an enumerated constitutional right. That should lead to a SCOTUS case which, by rights, should also include financially punitive measures against Seattle for imposing the measure in the first place.

  3. ExpatNJ Says:

    FWIW:

    “No state shall convert a liberty into a license and charge therefore”
    (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 1943).

    “If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity”
    (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262, 1963.