Advertisements
Home

Seattle Gun Tax Fails to Generate Projected Revenue, Succeeds in Burdening Rights

1 Comment

H/T The NRA-ILA.

I have never seen any liberal scam to raise revenue ever work be it a gun tax, cigarette tax etc.

On March 16, 2017, the Seattle Times reported that Seattle city officials were reluctant to release data on the revenue generated by the city’s firearms and ammunition tax, citing taxpayer confidentiality concerns. Less than a week later, we now know the more likely reason that Seattle failed to disclose this tax revenue; because the money raised fell woefully short of the figure projected by supporters of the tax.

In July 2015, Seattle City Council President Tim Burgess proposed legislation he dubbed a “Gun Violence Tax,” contending that “It’s time for the gun industry to help defray” the cost of criminal violence perpetrated with guns. Burgess’s proposal was unanimously passed by the city council on August 10, 2015. The legislation imposed a $25 tax on firearm sales, a $.02 per round tax on .22 and smaller caliber ammunition, and a $.05 per round tax on ammunition greater than .22 caliber. The revenue was intended to be used to fund anti-gun research at the Harborview Medical Center.

  On August 24, 2015, NRA, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and the Second Amendment Foundation filed suit in King County Superior Court to prevent the city from enforcing the new tax. NRA’s complaint pointed out that the tax violates the Second Amendment and is also impermissible under Washington law.

The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that governments are not permitted to attack constitutionally-protected conduct through taxation. In the First Amendment context, the Court struck down a Minnesota use tax on ink and paper used in publishing. In that case – Minneapolis Star Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue – the Court warned that “A power to tax differentially, as opposed to a power to tax generally, gives a government a powerful weapon against the taxpayer selected.”

Washington’s firearms preemption statute also bars Seattle’s tax. Section 9.41.290 of the Revised Code of Washington states,

The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components.

and,

Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.

Washington law does provide a small number of specific exemptions to the state firearm preemption statute, but these concern local zoning in relating to firearms dealers, carry in certain municipal buildings, and the discharge of firearms.

Despite the plain language of Washington’s preemption statute, in December 2015 King County Superior Court Judge Palmer Robinson upheld Seattle’s tax. NRA and our allies have appealed the court’s decision, and the case now sits with the Washington State Supreme Court.

In advocating for the tax, Burgess and other supporters of the legislation repeatedly cited figures from the City Budget Office that claimed the tax would raise between $300,000 and $500,000 a year. In an email to the Times this week, Burgess confessed, “During its first year, the firearms and ammunition tax payments received by the City were less than $200,000.” It is not clear how much less than $200,000 the city collected.

According to the Times, to come up with the outlandish $300,000-$500,000 figure, the City Budget Office “obtained the annual number of background checks for gun sales in Washington. Then they looked up what percentage of Washington’s licensed gun dealers were in Seattle and used that to guess the number of firearms sales in the city.” In addition to the fact that its analysis was too rudimentary to offer an accurate estimate of gun sales in Seattle, the budget office appears to have made no attempt to predict the impact the significant tax would have on the behavior of gun dealers and buyers.

Making this projection appear even more ridiculous is that the 2016 tax shortfall occurred in a year that witnessed record gun sales nationally and in the Evergreen State. In 2016, there were 713,996 NICS background checks conducted in Washington, whereas the 2015 total was 502,280. Washingtonians were buying plenty of guns in 2016, but as many predicted when the tax was proposed, not in Seattle.

The inaccuracy of City Budget Office’s projections was readily apparent to gun dealers at the time the tax was enacted. Shortly after Burgess proposed the tax, Seattle gun store owner Sergey Solyanik told the Times that he didn’t think the city’s projected revenue was realistic. Solyanik explained that should the tax pass, “I would have almost no margins, so I would pass the tax on to my customers and most people would simply not buy from me… They would go to any of the stores around Seattle — there are a large number — and I would have to close.” Another gun dealer told the Times, “The public won’t buy ammunition in Seattle anymore… When a $10 or $15 box of ammunition costs an extra five bucks, it won’t be worth it.”

In addition to speaking to the press, Solyanik took his concerns about the tax and the foolish revenue projection directly to the city council. On July 15, 2015, Solyanik told the council, “I was horrified when I see the numbers behind this proposal. Seattle is a city that has a vibrant engineering community. We would think that we would be making decisions such as this based on data. And the data that has been submitted by the proponents is completely fake.” Speaking to the council again on the day that it passed the tax, Solyanik warned, “the revenue numbers in this proposal are not real. The city is not going to get any money from this tax. The city instead will lose tax revenue on existing sales.” Solyanik went on to add, “The only real purpose of this legislation is to run gun stores out of the city. I know it, you know it, and the courts will know it.”

In that effort, the city succeeded. Solyanik moved his store outside the city to avoid the tax. According to the Times, the only other dedicated gun store in Seattle has also left. Any honest accounting of the revenue collected from the tax should account for the lost revenue from these stores, and the others whose business has been curtailed by Seattle’s restriction.

Seattle’s high-profile failure has put every other anti-gun locality on notice that this type of taxation scheme is ineffective for raising revenue. Seattle’s embarrassment should make it harder for other localities to hide behind the false claim that these sorts of tax regimes are intended to raise revenue, rather than burden Second Amendment rights.

Advertisements

Man stalking ex-girlfriend is fatally shot after kicking in her door (VIDEO)

1 Comment

H/T Guns.com.

Getting stuck on stupid gets the ex boyfriend killed.

<iframe src=”https://cdnapisec.kaltura.com/p/2031091/sp/203109100/embedIframeJs/uiconf_id/36217991/partner_id/2031091?iframeembed=true&playerId=media-preview_0_0_dob68xv4&entry_id=0_dob68xv4&flashvars%5BstreamerType%5D=auto&#8221; width=”640″ height=”395″ allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozAllowFullScreen frameborder=”0″>

A 21-year-old man was shot and killed in Detroit Tuesday morning after he kicked in the door to his ex-girlfriend’s apartment.

Neighbors say the man had been harassing the 31-year-old woman for some time and caused frequent disturbances in the area. In fact, in the short time that she’s lived at the apartment, the man had already damaged her garage door and a window. But when he kicked in her front door shortly after 8 a.m., the woman’s brother grabbed a gun and opened fire.

The ex-boyfriend was struck multiple times in the chest and pronounced dead at the scene. When police arrived, his car was parked on the street and still running.

“It’s very sad that he had to lose his life to a relationship that he didn’t want to break up,” said one neighbor.

Residents say they have called the police on the man numerous times and the woman made it clear to her neighbors that she was not interested in having a relationship with the man.

Police recovered two guns from the scene, although it’s unclear if both belonged to the woman’s brother or whether one was carried by the ex-boyfriend.

[ Click on Detroit ]

Massad Ayoob: 5 Things To Know After A Defensive Shooting

1 Comment

H/T The Daily Caller.

This is some very good advice.

Massad Ayoob, Gun Digest

Never forget that when you shoot someone, however necessarily and justifiably, you look an awful lot like a killer and he looks an awful lot like a victim. The stereotype can take hold quickly if you don’t act to let the authorities – from the first responding officer to the designated lead investigator – know what happened. The old saying “You only get one chance to make a first impression” is absolutely true here.

Decades ago, I developed a five-point checklist of things I feel the righteous shooter needs to establish as soon as possible in the aftermath. It has been widely adopted, sometimes with attribution and sometimes without, and is now recommended by entities ranging from the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network to the US Concealed Carry Association. I’m rather proud of that.

Five-Point Checklist

  1. Establish the active dynamic. That is, let the authorities know immediately what happened here. If you have harmed someone in self-defense, always remember that the active dynamic is not what you did to him, it’s what he was trying to do to you or another victim. The active dynamic is his action that forced your lawful response. It’s not, “I shot him.” It’s, “This man tried to kill me.” Or, “This man attacked my wife.” Whatever it was that led to your use of force.This makes it clear that the guy on the ground doing a convincing imitation of a victim is in fact the criminal perpetrator. It makes it clear that you, the person with the smoking gun who just shot someone, are in fact the intended victim. If one or more of your attackers has left the scene, explain that now, and give their description. It’s going to be hard for people to see you as the innocent party if you failed to let police know that a violent criminal was at large.
  2. Advise the police that you will sign the complaint. There are two roles open in this particular play: victim and perpetrator. As noted, appearances can create mistaken role reversal if things aren’t immediately clarified. By making a statement to the police to the effect of “I will sign the complaint,” you reinforce the fact that you are the victim-complainant, the good guy or gal, and the person you’re signing the complaint on is the bad guy who forced you to harm him in legitimate defense of self or others. (Note: I would not advise using the phrase “I will press charges.” The reason is that legal terminology varies slightly jurisdiction to jurisdiction. While in many jurisdictions it is indeed the complainant who presses charges, there are some places where the local terminology is such that the prosecutor “presses charges.” If you inadvertently find yourself in one of those places and say “I will press charges,” it sounds to the police as if you have delusions of being the elected chief prosecutor, and you won’t be off to a good start. “I will sign the complaint” is neutral and universal.)
  3. Point out the evidence. The scene will be chaotic. Witnesses will be trampling the scene. So will paramedics and police officers. I’ve seen cases of the bad guy’s gun being picked up by his accomplice or by a well-meaning neighbor who didn’t want to leave it where a child could find it. I’ve seen spent casings kicked away from their original resting place, or picked up in the treads of emergency personnel’s boots or the wheels of an ambulance gurney, thus altering the dimensions of the shooting scene and making it look like something it wasn’t. The sooner you point out the evidence to the first responding officers, the more likely it is to be secured. When you’ve done the right thing, evidence helps you.
  4. Point out the witnesses. Witnesses worry about having to lose time from work to testify in court, or being the target for vengeance by criminals. A lot of them “don’t want to get involved.” Once they leave the scene unidentified, their testimony that would have helped to prove your innocence leaves with them. Point out the witnesses to the police at the first opportunity. (Some have asked, “What if the witness is a friend of the attacker and lies about what happened?” The fact is, he was going to do that anyway, so you haven’t lost anything. However, your having pointed him out to the police can be seen as an indication that you believed in your own innocence, or you wouldn’t have steered the police to him, and that can’t hurt.)
  5. Politely decline further questioning until you have consulted an attorney. Studies show that, in the immediate aftermath of a life-threatening encounter, we may forget some things or get some details wrong. The questions to you will come at random as they occur to the officer, and you will answer them in the same order; in reviewing the cop’s notes and his recollection of the discussion later, this can create the false illusion that you were giving a narrative of events in the order in which they occurred, which of course is not the case. But later, when you do narrate events in the sequence of their occurrence, it creates a false perception that you have changed your story. Often, very frightening things that happened are blocked in short term memory by a subconscious that doesn’t want to recall them; when you mention something later that you didn’t mention at the scene, it sounds made up. You don’t want to answer detailed questions as to exact words spoken, distances, or time frames. None of us are human tape recorders. The tunnel vision that afflicts well over half of people caught up in something like a gunfight creates the literal optical illusion that things and people appear closer and larger than they are. If your memory tells you your attacker was six feet away when you shot him but he turns out to have been six yards away, you sound like a liar. Tachypsychia is likewise very common, the sense of things going into slow motion. It seemed to you as if the fight took a whole minute, and you say so, but a security camera shows it was actually only ten seconds, and now you look like a liar. The involved victim who had to fight for his or her very survival is the worst possible witness for measuring things in feet or inches, or counting how many shots were fired.

Experts recommend 24 to 48 hours between one of these “critical incidents,” as they are now euphemistically called in the emergency services, and when the participant is subjected to a detailed debriefing. The Force Science Institute recommends “one full sleep cycle.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/20/massad-ayoob-5-things-to-know-after-a-defensive-shooting/#ixzz4bv2ngVSt

Woman Dies In Front Of Kids In Accidental Suicide

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

This childern had to witness the death of this woman and they will be traumatized for a long time.

This woman died due because she forgot or did not know the rules of firearm safety. 

Jeff Cooper’s Rules of Gun Safety,

RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED

RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY

RULE III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET

RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET

This is the kind of story that makes me sometimes feel that I’m banging my head against the wall when I advocate spending the time and money to get good gear and good training. Two children were forced to see a woman—possibly their mother—die right in front of them because of the negligent discharge of her firearm.

Police say a woman has died after accidentally shooting herself while getting inside a car.

Corporal Ashley Jenrette with Hampton Police says the incident happened just before 8 a.m. on March 16 in the 1st block of Regal Way.

The woman was pronounced dead on the scene by the Hampton Division of Fire and Rescue.

Preliminary investigation has revealed that the woman was getting inside the car, when her gun accidentally went off.

Two juveniles were in the car at the time of the shooting.

I spoke with Corporal Jenrette with Hampton Police a short time ago. Investigators are still conducting their investigation into the death, and so they are not yet releasing any information about the location and nature of the woman’s injury, the kind and brand of holster she was using (if any) and at what location the gun was being carried, or even if it was on-body or off-body carried in a purse or bag. They are also not releasing any information about the firearm that discharged the single fatal shot.

All we can tell with any degree of certainty is that she did not have the trigger of a loaded weapon adequately protected, that the weapon was pointed at her body, and something depressed the trigger, causing the fatal shot to break.

I will never recommend the holsterless carry of a handgun, as it leaves the trigger poorly protected. I will never recommend inexpensive soft woven nylon holsters, as they are tend to leave the trigger poorly protected. I will never recommend thin leather or suede holsters, as they can tear easily, and they leave the trigger poorly protected. I would never recommend many of the belly bands and ladies’ holsters or pocket holsters that use neoprene, a material also used in wetsuits and known for its flexibility and stretch, all bad things around the trigger of a gun.

Are you sensing a theme here?

I can only recommend quality, well-designed holsters made of rigid leather or Kydex (living in the South I prefer Kydex to help keep sweat off my gun) to protect the trigger and keep the gun from going off, even if I fall, or slam into a hard surface directly against the holster.

Something pulled the trigger here. Whether it was this woman’s finger due to negligent gun handling, or due to her using no holster, or a poorly designed/maintained/built holster, is really very irrelevant to her family. My friend Reid Henrichs of Valor Ridge often notes that, “the lessons we learn are etched on the tombstones of others.”

Learn from this mistake, and never carry a handgun that isn’t protected by a quality holster that will both retain the weapon and protect the trigger from both fingers and foreign objects.

 

An Open Letter to Every “Mom” From a Victim Turned Survivor

Leave a comment

H/T JPFO.

Little Shannon Watts and her band of brain dead harpies will ignore this letter.

They have but one goal disarming every American.

Whenever I read the latest updates from Mom Demands Action, I can’t help but cringe. This gun control group tries to use their standing as mothers to advocate against the Second Amendment. They use their experience as mothers to claim they know what’s best for each and every one of us.

But they don’t know our story.

They don’t know my story.

Here’s my letter to all of those “moms” out there.

Dear “Moms,”

I am a Second Amendment advocate and I want to tell you my story. I want to tell you why I’m pro-gun and why you do NOT speak for me.

A few weeks shy of my 19th birthday, I was sexually assaulted in my college dorm room. My virginity stolen from me by a guy I had just met. I was new to the adult world, 600 miles from home, and forced to press charges against my perpetrator.

Everywhere I turned, I was afraid – paranoid even – that he was behind me, lurking and watching my every move. I felt insecure. For the first time in my life, I was afraid. Afraid to walk to class, afraid to walk to the dining hall, afraid of staying on campus – until eventually, everything I did was out of fear of my attacker.

That experience in my life was horrific, but it was an eyeopener. It made me realize two things:

1. The world isn’t always peaches and sunshine.
There is evil in the world and people who want to hurt you.
2. At the end of the day, the only person who can
protect me is me.

When you talk about campus carry advocates being drunken college kids who are going to shoot each other up, you’re utterly wrong. You’re talking about people like me. You’re talking about young women just like my 19-year-old self who are in need of protection.

What do you propose we do to defend ourselves? Carry a rape whistle and hope someone hears us? Dial 9-1-1 and wait until the cops show up?

Why should a survivor, like me, advocate in favor of victimhood? That is what your group is all about – creating more victims.

Instead of relying on others to protect me, I rely on myself…and my proficiency with my firearm.

I will never apologize for doing everything in my power to make sure other women don’t have to go through the horrendous pain I went through.

I will never apologize for advocating for women to protect themselves.

But I will call out people like you who try to keep me, and others like me, from protecting ourselves.

Sincerely,

A victim turned survivor

California Republican Wants Warning Labels on Guns

1 Comment

H/T Breitbart California. 

We need to get something straight California State Assemblywoman Catherine Baker (R-Dublin) is not a Republican she is an undocumented DemocRat.

If this line of crap passes in Commiefornia all gun manufacturers need to stop selling guns to Commiefornia. 

 

     

California State Assemblywoman Catherine Baker (R-Dublin) is pushing legislation to require that warning labels accompany all firearms sold in the state.

Baker’s bill, AB 1525, would also raise the passing grade “for the issuance of a firearm safety certificate” from 75% to 85%.

The text of Baker’s bill says that firearms packaging and “any descriptive materials” that accompany firearms sold in California shall contain the following warning:

The presence of a firearm in the home can significantly increase the risk of suicide, homicide, and unintentional shootings for household members. Firearms must be handled responsibly and securely stored to prevent access by children and other unauthorized users. California has strict laws pertaining to firearms and you can be fined or imprisoned for failure to comply with them. Visit the web site of the California Attorney General…for information on firearms laws applicable to you and how you can comply.
The warning also states:
Children are attracted to and can operate firearms that can cause severe injuries or death. Prevent child access by always keeping guns locked away and unloaded when not in use. If you keep a loaded firearm where a child obtains and improperly uses it, you may be fined or sent to prison.

The Firearms Policy Coalition reports that the warning label push is the result of Baker and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence working together for more gun control in California.

Baker is the only Republican representing the San Francisco Bay Area, and serves in a highly contested East Bay seat.

The “warning label” push was anticipated well in advance by gun rights advocates. On May 8, 2013 — less than a month after Senator Joe Manchin’s (D-WV) post-Sandy Hook gun control bill went down in flames — Breitbart News asked, “Is Gun Ownership the New Smoking?” The point of the question was to examine whether desperate gun control groups were about to go after guns using the same tactics that anti-tobacco forces had employed to go after cigarettes.

During a Sep. 10, 2015 appearance on Hardball with Chris Matthews, Moms Demand Action’s Shannon Watts confirmed that her gun control group planned on defeating the NRA by going around Congress to put “policies in place” at various businesses “just like they did with tighter [laws for] smoking.”

Assemblywoman Baker and the Brady Campaign are now calling for warning labels similar to those printed on the outside of cigarette packs and cartons.

“Trump Slump” Proved False By Strong Background Check Numbers

1 Comment

H/T The Daily Caller.

The number’s shoot holes(pun intended)in the gun sales slump narratives. 

Rumors of the “Trump Slump” in gun sales have been exaggerated. Recent reports point to three consecutive months of declining NICS background checks (a proxy for gun sales, though not all background checks are connected to a purchase and a single purchase may include multiple firearms) as evidence that President Trump’s election marks the end in a period that saw background checks monthly records broken regularly.

After eight years of an administration led by the “greatest gun salesman in history,” the shift away from an anti-gun agenda has likely eased the drive to buy guns, right?

Not necessarily. 

First, a record-setting number of background checks were completed on Black Friday 2016 – after Trump won the election. 

Perhaps more importantly, February 2017 NICS data contradicts the “Trump Slump” claims.

Examining the number of background checks completed in just the month of February for the last 18 years reveals that February 2017 was, in fact, the 3rd busiest February ever. Yes, the number of background checks in February 2017 is lower than it was in February 2016 – which happened to be the fourth busiest month of all time for NICS background checks.

Comparing current data to the record high points doesn’t prove that sales have plummeted; it does indicate that the number of background checks performed – and so the number of permit applications and/or firearms purchases – is still at near-record levels. February 2017, one of the months cited as proof of the “Trump Slump” was actually one of the 15 busiest months ever for background checks. 

December 2016 – after Trump and his party won the White House and Congress – was the 3rd busiest month ever. The “Trump Slump” allegation also points to a 17% drop in the number of checks performed in December 2016 from those performed in December 2015.

The narrative doesn’t mention that December 2015 featured the most background checks processed in a single month. Ever. 

While “Trump Slump” is a convenient phrase for a headline, it simply does not apply to background checks or gun sales.  

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/13/trump-slump-proved-false-by-strong-background-check-numbers/#ixzz4bQ4qHY6j

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: