This is the best summary I could come up with:
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California will double the taxes on guns and ammunition and use the money to pay for more security at public schools and various violence prevention programs under a new law Gov.
He argued that gun violence already costs taxpayers a lot of money in health impacts and in the criminal justice system.
Newsom also signed a law that, starting July 1, 2028, would require all semiautomatic pistols sold in California to have microstamping technology.
That means each bullet would have a unique marking making it easier for law enforcement to trace the gun it was fired from back to its owner.
They are an unconstitutional retaliatory and vindictive response to the Supreme Court’s affirmation that the Second Amendment protects an individuals’ right to choose to own a firearm for sport or to defend your family,” he said.
A legislative analysis of the law Newsom signed on Tuesday said it is now an “open question” whether a lawsuit challenging the tax would be successful.
The original article contains 872 words, the summary contains 167 words. Saved 81%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Let me guess, this is a massive violation of the second amendment and oppresses all Americans everywhere.
This is almost too perfect for them because, while not everyone who believes taxation is theft is an ammosexual, all ammosexuals believe that taxation is theft.
It’s the only thing that explains their willingness to ignore history and facts and just go with their emotions on every aspect of this issue.
Only unmitigated sexual lust could explain why in every debate they say such absolutely stupid shit like “well cars kill just as many people, should we ban cars?”
I remember my first boner.
Yes, even the expats living in countries with extremely restrictive gun laws.
This is California. 60% of the population will readily support this. The other 40% think that murder is one of their Constitutional freedoms. Thankfully, they are the minority and can continue to move themselves to Florida, Tennessee, Texas and other minor 'murican ethnostate dictatorships. The rest of us rational freedom-loving Californians bid them adieu.
Guns are already taxed under 2A.
Taxing them more is legal as long as the taxes aren’t so high that it infringes on rights.
In other words a 5 or 10% tax wouldn’t violate 2A but a 1000% tax certainly would.
If you still don’t believe guns are taxable, refer to sales tax.
Whoa now! I never said they couldn’t/shouldn’t be taxed. But we OK with a 200% markup on that tax?
California will double the taxes on guns and ammunition
This law serves two purposes:
Be seen to be “doing something”, always a winner. Tack on “for the children”, a tack conservatives are winning with.
More taxes on the poor. And that’s really the meat of it. It’s appalling how liberals (and I include myself in that definition) are quick to defend the poor, but abhor the notion of them defending themselves.
Further reading:
The courts held for two hundred and fifty years that there was no individual right. Only because we have three illegitimately installed Supreme Court justices did a court of law hold otherwise.
The reason it took thos long and basically coup is because the proposition is utterly ridiculous.
I’ll let it go right now, never argue for reasonable gun policy again, if you can find a single original document written in America prior to 1776 in which the phrase “bear arms” clearly refers to an individual right. Because even though 95% of the pre-1776 usage clearly refers to proper warfare, you will find that the other 5% is at best ambiguous and in zero cases express.
Reading an individual right into it a revisionst history and lies. That federalist society hacks and bootlickers have been clambering for it for the last fifty years does not negate the actual history of this nation and the development of western jurisprudence.
Here’s is just one absurdity: if the express purpose of the second amendment is “security of the state,” how does reading in an implied, individual right advance the interest of state security, when the express language “bearing arms” and “well-regulated militia” adequately and directly achieves the purpose?
Another absurdity is that the express purpose of the bill of rights was to codify existing rights, and even today everyone agrees that the bill of rights did not create new rights that the colonists did not already have as a matter of western, natural law, and for the most part, English common law. Guess what? They regulate guns in England and in every other western nation as we have done in America for 250 odd years.
-
The individual right was decided by a 5-4 court decision along party lines 2 centuries after the fact. It’s not as clear cut as freedom of speech
-
Poor people and people of color are disproportionately victims of gun violence. You may come back with “good guy with a gun” but in most altercations more guns equals more deaths.
-
While Reagan’s gun law in California was racist, it wasn’t what killed the Panthers, FBI assassinations did. Even if black people had all the guns in Texas they still wouldn’t be able to challenge the state.
Are you in California? Are you marginalized? Trying to understand your perspective. Move around be, if you’re marginalized, you should be worried about gun toting Nazis in the central valley, inland empire, deep redwoods, central coast, OC, etc… Tell me about your AR taking on the US military if tanks come down your street. It’s just not real. That’s a fantasy. Vote for decent people that represent you and your interests to pass legislation to protect you with that military. From Nazis. With guns. Or be the gun obsessed dude and fantasize about cosplaying cowboys.
The only time some care about the “marginalized” is when guns are involved. They care when the “marginalized” have guns, because higher percentages of marginalized groups tend to be involved in crime, or when they don’t have guns, because suddenly they need to defend themselves.
Great, now only the rich can commit gun crimes… /s
But how can I fend off the king of England now?!
Before I judge… What am I missing about this comment? Why downvoted? A random jab at a pedophile?
Do only rich people deserve guns?
Do the most vulnerable people in society not deserve a means of self defense or self sufficiency when you consider the demographics of lower earners?
What is the spirit of this legislation - what kind of person is supposed to be targeted by this? What kind of person actually commits gun violence?
That’s all well and good, maybe guns are inherently problematic. But since no one is paying attention to my wording I’ll just say it:
Right wingers and neo-fascists commit the majority of gun violence in this country and will absolutely never give them up. They are not the poor and unsophisticated rednecks you’re told they are, they tend to be richer than average and their brand of violence is calculated. Many of them are current and former police officers and therefore won’t take their friends’ guns away just because the law says so.
If you’re poor you’re less likely to be white and straight and therefore more likely to be harassed or killed by the aforementioned groups.
This is not me saying that it’s time to give up on gun control laws or that we need more guns. Fewer guns in the US will mean a more peaceful country. I’m saying that laws that simply make it more expensive to buy and own guns will not deter violent people from buying them because they impose no restrictions on them.
I can’t wait to see the faces of all you freedom hating dipshits when this and many other gun control efforts are appealed and fail the new Bruen standard.
HA HA motherfuckers. Gun rights are winning no matter what you try.
Most uses of firearms in the US are not self-defense. But funnily enough, if there were fewer guns… there’d be fewer need for those few self-defense cases.
Bro, it’s a matter of fundamental fairness. The cost of gun violence must be borne by the gun industry and gun owners.
Period.
Not innocent civilians, not tax payers at large.
E: only to abject morons could this comment seem unreasonable.
It’s unreasonable because you’re talking about taxing an enumerated right. Should we add a tax on social media users to cover the costs of misinformation? What about religious observance, should churchgoers pay sales tax on their tithes for the privilege of worshipping?
Weapon ownership is a right, not a privilege. The government cannot tax a right.
Don’t waste your time. People here aren’t looking for a rational discussion. This is the “shit on anyone who values their own safety” thread. Most of these commenters have only ever seen guns on the news, in the hands of criminals, who obviously don’t give a shit about these new laws.
I used to have to listen to my neighbor doing target practice with his semiautomatic pistol until his stepdaughter took a secret video of him beating the shit out of her mom and gave it to her teacher. He got all his most favoritest fancy boy toys taken away and now I just have to listen to him loudly fussing about it and blaming everyone but himself for it happening.
He’s an Olympic level cunt muffin with no sense of personal responsibility or care for the safety of others. Everyone I know who owns semiautomatic weapons is pretty much the exact same garbage personality type. Or a cop.
