Tuesday, August 25, 2015

National Rifle Association sues Seattle over 'gun violence' tax

Yahoo News

The National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups sued Seattle on Monday over a new tax on firearms and ammunition sales, arguing the city had violated a Washington state law barring municipalities from enacting local firearms regulations. 

Earlier this month, Seattle City Council unanimously approved a "gun violence tax" on sellers of firearms and ammunition, directing proceeds toward violence prevention programs and research beginning in January. A companion measure requires gun owners to report cases of lost and stolen firearms to police.

"The Seattle ordinance is nothing but a 'poll tax' on the Second Amendment and an effort to drive Seattle's firearms retailers out of business," said National Shooting Sports Foundation General Counsel Lawrence Keane, a plaintiff.

The lawsuit, filed on Monday in King County Superior Court, argues that Washington state law bars municipalities from creating their own gun regulations, the NRA said.

29 comments:

  1. This is simple enforcement of the state's preemption law. Considering they've already lost one such suit, you'd think they would have learned,

    "The lawsuit, filed on Monday in King County Superior Court, argues that Washington state law bars municipalities from creating their own gun regulations, the NRA said.
    In 2009, Seattle City Council passed regulations that prohibited the carrying of firearms in city parks, an ordinance that was struck down in 2012 by the state's highest court, the NRA said."

    Anyone recall if they do the loser pays thing in regards to legal fees like Colorado? I wonder what the voters think of having to pay for these cases....

    ReplyDelete
  2. . . . arguing the city had violated a Washington state law barring municipalities from enacting local firearms regulations.

    Yep. That "law" is illegal. That would make those who implemented it criminals.

    ReplyDelete
  3. How is a product sales tax a gun regulation? How is the requirement to report the loss or theft of a lethal weapon a gun regulation; not simply public safety?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Considering the boldness of this city regulation, the best possible outcome would be a clumsy challenge by the NRA. Maybe this will become a landmark case for city rights.

    We all love local control, right?

    Denton Texas comes to mind.

    Yep. That "law" is illegal. That would make those who implemented it criminals.

    State law may supersede city and county law. But that does not make it a crime for a municipality to enact their own laws. Don't you have even the slightest libertarian leanings? Or are you okay with the tyranny of the NRA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. State law may supersede city and county law.

      There's no "may" about it. Washington state law preempts all local gun laws, period.

      But that does not make it a crime for a municipality to enact their own laws.

      Yes it does.

      Don't you have even the slightest libertarian leanings?

      I'm libertarian to the core, and that's one reason I categorically reject outrageous punitive taxes, especially those imposed on the exercise of a Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual, and especially when the vast majority of those being punished by the tax are in no way responsible for the "gun violence problem" the tax is supposedly intended to help pay for.

      Or are you okay with the tyranny of the NRA.

      I have a whole skeleton of bones to pick with the NRA, but this ain't one of them.

      Delete
    2. Denton Texas is but one of the cities in Texas that tried to buck state law and didn't get away with it. But state preemption on Texas gun laws was made VERY clear in 1995 and no city or county tried to breech state preemption. They came close to trying to when open carry passed in Texas but got slapped down on the amendments of trying to exclude the largest cities.

      It works better this way, No county or city may supersede state law. Period.

      Delete
  5. I can't wait to see how this turns out. The whining of the gun nuts is entertaining.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Say, Mikeb, have you seen this handy-dandy little image?

      So, yeah--I can't wait to see how it turns out, either. My prediction is that it will turn out much like this, and I look forward to the entertainment of you whining about this like you did about that.

      Delete
    2. So, Washington State disallows cities to violate state law but finds it ok to legalize marijuana in violation of federal law.

      A lot needs to be straightened out there.

      Delete
    3. "Washington State disallows cities to violate state law but finds it ok to legalize marijuana in violation of federal law."

      There is something to be said for higher authorities allowing such things to happen. So which is worse, Washington State passing a law that allows conduct that federal law calls illegal? Or the federal government, which seems to have colluded with two state governments by promising not to take them to court?
      And on a similar note, shall we bring up that Seattle is a sanctuary city, which means they are not only violating the state's preemption law, but they are violating federal immigration law. They seem to be veritable governmental scofflaws.

      Delete
    4. The violation of federal law is Obama's fault for not enforcing the law. If he had been enforcing federal laws the Washington and a few other states would be facing the consequences of that violation. The same with immigration laws and several others.

      If you dont enforce the laws we have, this is the results you get.

      Delete
    5. So, Washington State disallows cities to violate state law but finds it ok to legalize marijuana in violation of federal law.

      Is Washington really violating federal marijuana laws, or merely refusing to enforce them, or to have a similar prohibition at the state level?

      But that's kinda beside the point. You aren't really trying to claim that you'd be OK with the state enforcing its firearms preemption law, if only weed were still illegal there, are you? You were, after all, in a pretty high state of hysteria when Seattle's guns in parks ban was overturned for the same reason this tax will probably be, and that was well before the cannabis legalization.

      Delete
    6. It's pretty hypocritical (and funny) for these gun loons to demand anyone enforce the law, when they make heroes out of those who break gun laws and encourage people to break gun laws they find objectionable.

      Delete
    7. "They seem to be veritable governmental scofflaws."

      I guess the heroic stance of "bad laws be damned" is only heroic if it's about gun control laws.

      Delete
    8. "If you dont enforce the laws we have, this is the results you get."

      What are you lamenting with that ridiculous comment, Newcastle, the marijuana freedom or the attempts of Seattle to tax on guns and ammo?

      Delete
    9. I guess the heroic stance of "bad laws be damned" is only heroic if it's about gun control laws.

      I would never argue that (I greatly admire the violators of the Fugitive Slave Act, for example). When the government violates laws, though, all laws are damned, because the makers and enforcers of laws are themselves lawless.

      Delete
    10. Ridiculous?

      Thats yes to both questions.

      Delete
  6. If taxing pot will help cities and States balance their budgets, just imagine the revenue from a much larger group (gun owners) will help. Even an illegal gun owner must pay a tax before he has ammunition to kill.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are funny SS. I guess you missed my point. Ammo should be taxed everywhere.

      Delete
    2. Good luck with that Anon. I'm sure your success with that will mirror the trend in shall issue states reverting back to may-issue states....

      Delete
    3. Thanks again for proving what a dishonest, kill crazy, gun loon you are. By the way, the Civil War settled States rights issues, the right to a gun is a federal right.

      Delete
    4. I believe federal law takes precedence over state law Anon, but if federal law is silent, then states can pass laws, in this case a preemption law which says subordinate governments can't bass gun laws. That is what this suit is about.

      Delete
    5. Gee, that's not what you have said MANY times before. Thanks for proving yourself to be a liar.

      Delete
  7. "If taxing pot will help cities and States balance their budgets, just imagine the revenue from a much larger group (gun owners) will help."

    That's funny Anon. Wile I'm sure that there are some who will pay whatever tax there is out of convenience, don't forget its a plant that will grow pretty much anywhere. They weren't able to control it when it was flat out illegal, what makes you think they will be any more successful taxing it?
    And along the same line, many people manufacture their own ammunition to save money and as a hobby. And of course, they could always just drive to a store outside the city and buy the ammo without the tax.
    I really like this part,

    "Even an illegal gun owner must pay a tax before he has ammunition to kill."

    Were you tracking that the same law which keeps felons and the like from possessing firearms also does the same for possession of ammunition?

    But at the end of the day, the city is violating a state law and private citizens shouldn't have to be suing. The State Attorney General should be stepping on this. Much like this one,

    "Strange, in office since 2010, published public statements this week disclosing his communications with a county sheriff over pistol permit irregularities and with a city mayor and attorney over local firearms prohibitions.
    Pointing out that both were in violation of state law, his office decided not to file suit after each changed their policies."

    http://www.guns.com/2015/07/30/state-ag-keeps-smoking-illegal-gun-free-zones-in-alabama/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's what courts are for idiot.

      Delete
    2. Which is where that would have gone if policies had not changed.

      Idiot.

      Delete
    3. "Which is where that would have gone if policies had not changed."

      And as I said in my previous comment, why isn't it the State Attorney General taking Seattle to court over violations of state law? Isn't that their job?

      Delete
    4. I'm sure he has other important things to do than your little delusional stance.

      Delete
    5. Why is the NRA spending their money suing States when they claim to support safety activities around guns, yet don't spend their money on safety programs?

      Delete