California is about to tax guns more like alcohol and tobacco − and that could put a dent in gun violence

Classic

This is pretty fucking elitist.

If you don’t want guns go all in and ensure the elites cannot have them either.

Iirc that's how Australia does it. You need the whole strict background check and training and I believe you can only get ammo at the range.

In the US, especially in this polarised climate, the vast majority of changes to law start with one state, and then another, and then another until slowly it gets adopted around the country.

california is big. It may work better than other places, but a fed licensing program would be ideal

I'm not against gun control, but it seems to me that a state level fix ain't it.

Views like this are why nothing gets done. Starting small is better than doing nothing at all.

It's hard to change things for the whole country. It's a lot easier to change things just in one state and observe the effects. If the changes work, other states may choose to do the same thing.

Of course, it's illegal for an FFL to sell a handgun to anyone with an out of state license unless they ship it to an FFL in the person's home state for the NICs check and to make sure it complies with local laws. As for rifles, while there is no federal requirement stating the same, you'd be very hard pressed to find an FFL that is going to sell one to a person with an IL license unless it goes through the same system, all FFLs especially in border states know IL laws and are obviously hesitant to run afoul of them, iirc there is actually a local IL statute prohibiting the buying of long guns out of state without sending them through an FFL (like federally for pistols but for IL specifically with the long guns too) in it's own that the neighboring FFLs would get in trouble with the ATF for violating, not to mention FOID and standard capacity mag bans

This is the case for basically every issue, yeah, this is generally why telling people to start with politics at the local level isn't really a great suggestion for most people.

You can't fund inter-city trains at the local level, really, that has to be done at the state level at the very least, usually in a state like california, only, and usually it has to be done with federal funding. If you don't have inter-city trains or public transit, then it's hard to make a walkable city. Basically what I'm saying is that it's not atomizable, it has to be integrated with the rest of the network, which is why even the best US cities are pretty car-centric.

This is true for a litany of other political issues besides just public transit.

"Damn! He musta did something cuz he put fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass!"

You don’t need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control. Men, we need to control the bullets, that’s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders.

Yeah! Every time somebody get shot we’d say, ‘Damn, he must have done something ... Shit, he’s got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass.’

And people would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost five thousand dollars. ‘Man I would blow your fucking head off…if I could afford it.’ ‘I’m gonna get me another job, I’m going to start saving some money, and you’re a dead man. You’d better hope I can’t get no bullets on layaway.’

So even if you get shot by a stray bullet, you wouldn't have to go to no doctor to get it taken out. Whoever shot you would take their bullet back, like "I believe you got my property.

This is a great idea. The flood of illegal and stolen weapons wouldn’t be taxed but they all need ammo to do harm.

I know home made ammo exists but I find it hard to believe it would ever be more than niche

Hey pal, let me let you in on a secret -- bullets have already been getting more expensive, especially since COVID.

https://publination.co/cost-of-ammunition-skyrocketing-in-2024/

Maybe a comedian doesn't have the secret key to gun control after all...

You’re gonna see a drop in gunshots if every bullet costs $1k.

First of all, that's simply not true. Do you have any idea how easy reloading is? You seriously think these criminals are gonna just stop shooting people because they can't buy bullets at wallmart no more? Even with that aside, the last thing we need is giving the rich and powerful gangs a monopoly on firearms.

Common sense gun control isn't that hard, instead of pushing things that don't make any sense we should be pressuring the GOP fascists more.

This is the fundamental problem with gun regulation at the state level -- they can be effectively abrogated by neighboring states with more lax regulation. FiveThirtyEight did a piece on this a while ago. In that article they show how strict gun laws in Illinois, California, and Maryland are defeated by guns flowing in from the surrounding states with more lax laws. The vast majority of gun crime is committed with guns which are illegally possessed, but were initially obtained through legal means.

Wait.... You're telling me that they continue to do crimes with guns even when the guns are illegal? Criminals? Really? I refuse to believe it.

The point of most gun control is to reduce the amount of guns not necessarily remove them all.

Of course at least some criminals will always have guns but lots of deaths could be prevented by just reducing the amount of people with illegal or legal guns.

It's also much more likely for a potential criminal to become a criminal with a gun if it's really easy to get guns, especially if they or someone they know (like parents) already own one.

the guns i see the criminals use

Are you running up to folks during a bank robbery and asking them for receipts?

Or is this, like, guns you saw criminals use in a cartoon show?

The constitutionality of this tax will come down to how the Roberts Court wants to interpret and apply the 200-year old concept first issued in an opinion during the Marshall Court -- the power to tax is the power to destroy. The government cannot use its authority to levy taxes in a manner which significantly encroaches on the exercise of an enumerated right. I like CA's idea here, but it's all going to come down to implementation.

There's also this crazy thing called an illegal market which circumvents tax entirely

Tbf, define "refuses." Suppressors, SBS, SBR, 1932; Background Checks, 1968; Full auto ban, 1986; AWB, 1994-2004, expired, little to no measurable impact on crime.

And yet they push and push to get the AWB back despite the fact that those guns make up less than .01% of our gun deaths, why would I think that rounding down that .01% would be "enough" and they wouldn't then progress to handguns which are demonstrably the highest contributing type of arms? Frankly there has been those compromises in the past and yet they continue to push already, it wouldn't make sense for them to stop pushing for the 99.99% once they get the .01%, they just know the "well handguns for protection I understand but those assault weapons are automagical murder machines" crowd won't go for it yet.

And sucks even more for POC because statistically they don't have the monetary means that white people do. So higher taxes mean less legal guns for POC... Oh, wait, the law is working the way it's intended.

This is what happens when one side refuses to come to the negotiating table

Say for the sake of argument, I am President of the NRA and I can persuade my members to agree with whatever comes out of negotiations and you are on the other side, seeking a 'reasonable compromise' on gun ownership and some 'common sense' gun control legislation.

What are you willing to compromise on? What are you willing to give up??

How often do people really defend themselves with lethal force?

Are your criminals weird or something? Do they shoot people at every opportunity?

No, defending property doesn't justify lethal force.

I don't get how it's even constitutional. How are even permitting fees constitutional? I could see having the requirements exist, but I don't see how forcing a cost can be.

Neither side wants to negotiate here. Democrats want bans. Republicans want as much access as possible. Both sides view compromise as a temporary step towards their ultimate goal.

That's the real point. This will have no impact on violence, let alone make a dent. It's about the controlling class disarming the working class. If only Marx had said something about this.

Where do you think illegally acquired firearms are sourced from?

PDF: ATF NFCTA vol2 part3, Crime Guns Recovered and Traced
ATF traced 70.2% (1 million firearms) of submitted 'crime guns' to having originally been purchased from a dealer. An additional 22.6% (⅓ million) were from pawnbrokes. [page 7]
In 12.2% of the cases [page 26] purchaser and possessor was the same.
One or more guns are stolen in 63% of household burglaries.

From conclusion page 41:

Traced crime guns typically originate from the legal supply chain of manufacture (or import), distribution, and retail sale. Crime guns may change hands a number of times after that first retail sale, and some of those transactions may be a theft or violate one or more regulations on firearm commerce.

Smoking is so much more prevalent in other states than it is in California. Even vaping has been dropping off recently. California overall has less binge drinking than other states but I’d attribute that as much to good weather and lots to do instead of just taxes.

Both of those are way down from when I was in my twenties.

Yeah, it will accomplish ensuring poor people have a harder time exercising their rights. Apparently that is something California is very interested in.

Marx said things like that because he believed that his political and economic theories could only be implemented through violence. That statement was not intended as "workers should be able to protect themselves." It meant "workers need to go out and proactively kill people."

Exactly. And that's why this won't do shit. The people who are committing the vast majority of those homicides and other violent crimes are not using legal firearms. They don't go to a gun dealer and pay a tax and fill out a background check. They buy illegal guns on the street.

Those illegal guns can come from anywhere. Stolen, straw purchased in other states, or simply imported along with the equally illegal drugs that the firearm's owner is probably selling on the street.

All this text does is punish the law abiding gun owners who are not committing crimes who do fill out background checks who do follow the law and who do pay their taxes. Those aren't the people causing the problem.

Bingo. I know several people who make significant 'side hustle' money by bringing in objects california bans when they travel there for other business. Someone else mentioned illinois has the same issue.

That's not an issue. Reduction is the goal, not elimination.

A demonstration that the laws work, but need to be implemented at a national scale.

Right. Which brings prices up. Which decreases sales.

Poll tax is illegal but watch the ID required to vote crowd lose their mind when you discuss free government IDs

Are you serious? A tax does not prevent you from legally acquiring anything. At worst, it risks putting the poor at even more of a disadvantage

SCOTUS has ruled in the past that some reasonable restrictions can be placed on the right to bear arms (banning kids from carrying, for example). Not to mention that some legal minds disagree on the entire intent of the 2nd amendment

No citizen should own a gun so its a good step to tax them more. Should be much higher though

But if there’s less ammo out there, there’s less to be stolen, no?

Why ban or tax anything? criminals will get it anyway. Let’s legalize nukes for everyone!!!!

You lost me, are you saying the tax is effective by costing more or not effective by costing more.