Sanberg: California Should Declare Economic War Against the Gun Industry

gavin newsom trump gun control california

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)

California has the most limits, restrictions and regulations on firearms, their sale, and the right to keep and bear arms of any state in the nation. The state and its political class take great pride in the burdens they’ve placed on Second Amendment freedoms.

That being the case, why are such drastic measures as those described below still necessary to tackle the state’s alleged “gun violence epidemic”?

Currently federal law sets an excise tax on imported firearms and ammunition. Established in 1919, the tax adds 10 percent to the sales price of pistols and revolvers, and 11 percent for rifles and shotguns, and ammunition. Imagine if every gun purchased — regardless of its manufacturer — came with a massive tax (think 50-75 percent) that made the cost to purchase it far less accessible. Add to that a similar surcharge for ammunition, and the purchase and use of deadly weapons would be effectively obstructed.

And let’s not stop with gun purchasers. Adding similar taxes for anyone who sells guns could discourage people from entering the business.  Those who do decide to sell guns may opt to hand down the extra fees to their customers, making gun ownership even more unaffordable.

Capping it all off, these new revenues for the government could fund additional safety measures like gun education and buy-back programs. It’s a win-win that could dramatically curb gun violence across the country.

The California Legislature, with a Democratic supermajority, ought to consider a similar excise tax on the sale of guns and ammo.  Recently a bill was introduced in the Assembly aimed at implementing a proposal along these lines. This is a good start, and we should continue to pursue the concept.

The CalPERS board should finally tighten the purse strings on its $355 billion portfolio and divest from firearm and other related industries.

– Joe Sanberg in Use power of the purse to curb gun violence in California

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    Somebody should remind Joe that Americans shot government agents over a 0.8% excise tax on tea.

    1. avatar PK says:

      …and? We’ve been conditioned for generations since then, and grudgingly accept 50%+ taxes throughout daily life.

    2. avatar Chris says:

      Yeah! Let’s kill em! Let’s shoot anyone who dares say a bad word about our God-given right to own a firearm, nevermind the God-given right to live in a country where you don’t have to worry about getting shot by a fellow citizen carrying a gun.

      1. avatar Thixotropic says:

        You are obviously an idiot off your meds.

        Take a chill pill and shut up.

        1. avatar Chris says:

          Oh. You’re impressive! Please don’t shoot me badass. You think your little pathetic attempt at insulting me is going to change the fact that you gun idiots are causing a huge problem in the country?

        2. avatar Chris says:

          And you’re obviously a moron.

        3. avatar Chris says:

          And what exactly was idiotic about what I said? You think it is idiotic to not want to get shot by some moron like you? Happens everyday, you fucking inbred, ignorant, sub-human piece of trash.

      2. avatar URAD says:

        No, he thinks you’re a dick and so does everyone else.

        1. avatar Chris says:

          Lol. Please don’t shoot me John Wayne!

          Asshat.

        2. avatar Chris says:

          You know, I find it risible in the extreme that whenever I present arguments against guns, no one wants to actually debate the points with me; they just want to start hurling insults. That’s perfectly fine by me, if that’s what you want to do, but why not actually try to refute what I am saying? It makes me think you don’t really have a valid argument to the contrary.

        3. avatar Hannibal says:

          I’m sure you feel very smart. No one cares.

        4. avatar Excedrine says:

          Except that you don’t actually present any arguments whatsoever at all. Had you actually possessed the ability to develop the capacity for critical thought, you’d’ve already realized that you’re actually only making snide and under-handed accusations of impropriety before anyone says a fucking word to your retarded ass. There’s less than absolutely-fucking-nothing to refute, you damn-well know that there isn’t, which is why you only get the insults that you oh-so richly fucking deserve.

          You’re a deluded moron hiding behind the relative anonymity of the internet and not one fucking thing more, and every bit the willfully pig ignorant, horribly inbred, subhuman piece of garbage that you like to THINK everyone else here is.

          Shut the fuck up and roll on to people who don’t already know better than you do, dumbass, please and thanks.

      3. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “Yeah! Let’s kill em! Let’s shoot anyone who dares say a bad word about our God-given right to own a firearm,…”

        There are laws proposing “calling someone a name”, like “illegal alien” or “faggot” be a criminal act…

        1. avatar Chris says:

          Well, the difference is, name-calling won’t kill me.

      4. avatar burley says:

        obvious troll is obvious, do not feed

        1. avatar Chris says:

          No, idiot. I am not a troll. What I am is very angry that I have to turn my TV on and hear about mass shootings every couple of weeks, that children are getting slaughtered in school. And what do I get when I visit the internet? Dumb fucks on sites like this one who insist that having more and more and more firearms in the hands of citizens prevents death by firearms. Are you all retarded? In what reality does that make any logical sense?

        2. avatar Chris says:

          Think I am playing a fucking game shithead?

        3. avatar Excedrine says:

          @Chris — Yes, you actually are a troll. Nothing you or anyone alive — or that is ever going to live for that matter — can think, say, or do anything to change that. You’re actually angry because your TV tells you to be angry, and your TV tells you to be angry at exactly the wrong fucking people. Not that your retarded ass would know this, naturally. Dumb fucks like you who visit this site who insist on more and more and more punishment for innocent people who have less than absolutely-fucking-nothing to do with mass shootings are who should shut the fuck up. In what reality does what you’re proposing making any logical sense?

          I’ll go ahead and answer that question for you before steam erupts out of your lop-sided fucking ears: nowhere in any reality. This includes the one that you’ve deluded yourself into thinking is the real deal.

          STFU and GTFO. Note that there’s no “or” there, either, or any other option offered for that matter. Lock up your fucking cum dumpster and take a long walk off a short pier.

      5. avatar Someone says:

        Chris, if you really believed you might get shot by a gun owner, you would be more careful and wouldn’t mete out insults like “Happens everyday, you fucking inbred, ignorant, sub-human piece of trash.” This doesn’t sound like something you say to an armed man you consider dangerous. (You should seek professional help about that rage and hate you have inside.)

        What happens everyday is people offing themselves and criminals offing other criminals. Often using firearms to do so.

        If we, everyday regular gun owners (about 100 millions of us) were a problem, you would know it. If our 3-4 hundreds of millions of firearms were a problem, you would know it too. Your very continuing existence and your unfettered ability to spew vitriol on us is the best proof of our peaceful, patient, even stoic nature.
        Still, it’s ill advised to kick a sleeping bear.

        1. avatar Chris says:

          First of all, I have zero fear of death, coming from you or anyone else. You haven’t a clue who you are talking to, so I would stop with the veiled threats if I were you.

          Sounds like you subscribe to the idea that “the best defense against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” That would work, if only the bad guys would wear black hats, and the good guys would wear white ones.

          When explained in those terms, it sounds kind of stupid, doesn’t it? That’s because it is. How exactly do you tell who the “bad guys” are, prior to them committing an act of violence? A good portion of these mass shooters had no prior record. People snap. You have little way of knowing which person that might be before they pull the trigger. And even if you do, history has proven that many times, warnings go unheeded.

          Also, it’s not your job to whip out your gun and start squeezing off rounds out in public. Leave that to the police. If you want a gun in your own home, fine. But ordinary people do not need to carry in public. I don’t trust people to be responsible enough. Too many things can go wrong–and do–far too often.

        2. avatar Chris says:

          And btw, Mr. Peaceful, if you were paying attention, the sub-human insulted me first.

        3. avatar Chris says:

          Further, I forgot to mention the most important point of all: I AM noticing the effects of all these millions of firearms; that’s the whole point. That’s why I am here. That is exactly the problem; there are way too many of them.

        4. avatar Jeep1967 says:

          Chris- It is obvious that you follow the media and believe everything you are fed. You actually believe there is a gun violence epidemic when the facts show that gun deaths have been decreasing every year for several decades at the same time that millions of guns have been purchased and record numbers of concealed carry licenses have been issued. Each year, twice as many people are beaten to death with hands and feet than are killed by rifles, including the scary “assault rifles” that uninformed people like you are trying to ban. Try doing some real research about the subject you are so angry about before coming here and spewing your irrational hate.

        5. avatar Excedrine says:

          @Chris — First of all, you very clearly do fear death. A lot. So much so that you knowingly, wrongly think it would come from anyone here, in fact. We know exactly who and what the fuck we’re talking to, too, asshole. So you don’t get to — and you won’t — be telling us what to do. We’re not making any veiled threats, either, dumbass. No, that’s you wanting to threaten us with state action that you damn-well KNOW would be misapplied to us with your favored laws. NOT the other way around.

          Sounds like you subscribe to the widely-debunked, long-defunct, and repeatedly-falsified idea that, “if nobody had any guns then nobody would get shot.” That would work, if only you didn’t intentionally allow yourself to be deluded into thinking that you could actually stop bad guys from getting guns in the first place. Oh, and by the way, the best defense against a bad guy with IS a good guy with a gun — and whether you fucking believe that or not doesn’t even enter into it.

          So, when explained in real terms, you sound kind of stupid, don’t you? That’s because you most definitely fucking are. See, what you either genuinely don’t seem to understand, or (probably much more accurately in your case) outright fucking refuse to accept, is there’s this notion of “innocent until proven guilty.” (Given media and state maleficence, over the last few decades especially, that might only be nominally true nowadays, but I digress.) You’re probably not going to know who’s a deranged psychopath or not until they actually strike. Sure, the government might know, given that most every mass shooter in living memory was already well-known to local, state, and even federal law enforcement for years beforehand, but don’t expect them to tell you that. But, apparently, you’ve given yourself over to the notion that apparently everyone around you is a terrorist-in-waiting and that the first sure sign of this is that they give a full-throated defense of the right to keep and bear arms (as well as several other rights that your favored policies absolutely require the egregious violation of) in the face of demonstrable know-nothings like you.

          Also, it absolutely IS our job to preserve our own lives, and whether you fucking think so or not is also inadmissible. That IS the case because nobody will do it for us. Sometimes, that absolutely means unholstering and firing in public — which we’re also on average better at than the police, too, by the way. Sure, the cops will try to protect you where and when they can, try being the operative word. But, the prevailing court precedent asserts that they have zero moral, ethical, or statutory obligation to do so in any form or fashion whatsoever at all. They don’t even have to enforce court orders of protection or to so much as hold an arrested suspect in their custody. Hell, they don’t have to arrest anyone that they didn’t directly witness, with their own beady little eyes, committing a crime unless a warrant is issued.

          Just because you aren’t kosher with it doesn’t mean you’re justified in trying to get the government to pass laws saying we can’t, and with that effort threatening all of us — NOT the other way around — with lethal force. All without really having to lift a finger to any of us. Coward. So, no, you’re actually NOT noticing the real, measurable effects of all of those millions of guns; you don’t even have a cogent fucking point to begin with. With that fact firmly established, you don’t actually have any articulable reason to be here other than to be a troll. You have, unironically, made yourself to be part of the problem that you think you’re trying to address. It’s not the guns, stupid, it’s the people.

          Fix the people. Start with yourself. In the meantime, STFU and GTFO.

      6. avatar Ing says:

        Chris, there is no right to be worry-free. Here’s why.

        To say “I worry about X, therefore you must do Y” is to attempt to force the rest of the world to live according to your dictates. Given that every individual’s internal mental processes are inscrutable to others (even psychologists can only guess at what’s going on in your brain), it would be impossible to build any kind of functional society if everybody operated that way.

        How are you going to stop ALL of the people who might cause you distress? And what are the other people who operate the same way — but worry about very different things, which you can’t predict — going to do about you (or to you)?

        You tell us that we should simply trust the police because good guys with guns can’t stop bad guys. Yet what else are the police, if not good guys with guns? They’re not superhuman; they’re no smarter or stronger than I am. And if they can stop bad guys, why can’t I do it myself if I’m in danger when they’re not around?

        Also, there IS a natural right to self-defense.

        In a world where bad people can and will get deadly weapons of all sorts, how do normal people like you and me defend ourselves if we can’t use effective tools for the job?

        1. avatar Chris says:

          You are not a cop, trained and paid to do that, that’s why. You, as a citizen, don’t have the kind of oversight officers have to make sure you don’t do something you shouldn’t. You do not have supervisors and dashcams and radios monitoring you. You did not take an oath to serve and protect, nor did you major in criminal justice. If you want to be a cop, go for it. Just knowing how to shoot a gun doesn’t make you qualified to do the job of a police officer.

          “…there is no right to be worry-free.” Never said there was, nor do I want one. What I said was much more specific, and I think you know what that was already.

          And how is that “forcing” anything on you? You want to make that claim? I can flip that right around on you: You are trying to force me to accept your “right” to carry a firearm in public.

          All I am saying is, walk outside like a normal person, with the hands and feet God gave you. You don’t need to carry a weapon. You don’t need to add more gasoline to the fire. I know that idea is really terrifying, but I manage to do it everyday. You wanna guess how many times I have felt like I really needed a handgun? Zero.

          And btw, “forcing” my view on you doesn’t involve carrying a deadly object out in public, so there is a bit of a difference here in what I am asking versus what you want. You want any American without a criminal record to be able to carry a gun in public, and that involves trusting any old Joe on the street with my life. Sorry. Never going to agree to that. It’s insane, and personally, I can’t believe you all can’t see that.

        2. avatar Ing says:

          You said you had a “God-given right to live in a country where you don’t have to worry about getting shot by a fellow citizen carrying a gun.” I addressed exactly that by explaining why that type of so-called right doesn’t exist and can never exist.

          Have you missed all the incidents where police kill and injure innocent people *and* get away with it? They’re monitored not because they’re super special, but because they so frequently abuse their power.

          Also, you must have missed the fact that the LOWEST credible estimate of defensive gun usage is 80,000 per year. This shows that the average citizen is in fact perfectly capable of armed self-defense, and that self-defense is frequently necessary. And they do so with far less collateral damage than the police.

          “You don’t need a weapon.” There are at least 80,000 people each year (the CDC estimated 2 million) who demonstrably DID need one. Are you going to tell them that they should’ve just been raped or robbed or murdered instead? What makes you so sure you’ll never need one?

          That said, the odds that you’ll ever need to defend yourself against violent attack are still very low…but if you’re wrong, and you *do* need a weapon, the consequences of not having one can be permanent. Even fatal.

          Choosing *not* to be prepared in the face of such extreme consequences is insane — and the rest of us here have a hard time believing you can’t see that.

          Also, I’ll tell you this: I don’t walk around all day in fear for my life. Never have; I’m peaceful by nature, but as a large, intimidating-looking male, I’m not someone people tend to mess with. It’s an unearned benefit.

          However, I do frequently fear for my wife and daughter and my elderly parents, who don’t have that built-in “don’t mess with me” factor. I carry deadly weapons and practice with them because it’s my job to protect my loved ones and I want to do the best damn job humanly possible.

        3. avatar Ing says:

          Also, gun owners who carry aren’t running around trying to be cops. We’re not chasing down criminals, pulling over cars, or enforcing the law. We’re just prepared to defend ourselves in case the need arises — and if the need ever does arise, it’s virtually guaranteed that there won’t be a government agent on hand to do the job of self-defense for us.

          I might also ask why you’re so afraid of all these Regular Joes with guns when you’re so ostentatiously unafraid of criminals with guns. Seems backwards and crazy to me. There are plenty of people out there who might hurt you, but America’s millions of law-abiding gun owners and CCWers are not among them.

        4. avatar Excedrine says:

          @Chris — We don’t have to be cops, nor does anyone here claim to be trying to do the job of an officer. That’s a specious (non)argument and a knowing, outright LIE that you’ve been spinning yourself. Cops are often more poorly-trained than most of us are, too, contrary to what you’ve been deluded into believing by your TV. If you really were as astute an observer as you’ve so-far demonstrably falsely claimed to be, you’d know that by now. Hell, the police don’t have the kind of oversight that you’ve been deluded into thinking they do, either. All of the supervisors, radios, and dashcams sometimes don’t amount to jack shit when cops can commit crimes on-film and get a complete pass. THAT’S what happens all the fucking time, you ignorant, inbred, subhuman piece of garbage.

          You did, in fact, falsely claim that there was a right to be worry-free, and that’s precisely when you impotently bitched about in your very first fucking comment.

          Nobody is trying to force anything on you, either and you damn-well know that, too. You don’t have to accept our right to carry a gun in public. We already fucking have it, dumbass. Your opinion on it changes less than absolutely nothing about that, and that’s precisely what you’re upset about. Meanwhile, you are trying to force us to accept the uninformed, unsupported, and indefensible position that we don’t.

          What you like to falsely claim that we do or don’t need isn’t even admissible in this or any other debate on anything. You don’t know jack shit about what anybody needs other than yourself. If you don’t feel the need to carry a weapon, nobody here is going to stop you. At most, you might get a (apparently much needed) lecture about just how unwise that could be. But, ultimately, only you can make that determination for yourself. Likewise, only we get to determine for ourselves whether we “need” to carry a weapon in public, even though “need” is really moot and irrelevant, anyway.

          Oh, and by the way, if your favored policies become law (which they won’t at the federal level so get over it), you have used the threat of lethal force against us. Just what in the flying fuck do think a law is? Y’know what, I already know for a fact that you don’t have the slightest clue, so I’ll go ahead and answer that question for you, too, short stack. It isn’t reason. It isn’t evidence. It IS force. It carries with it, automatically and default, the threat of a gun for disobedience.

          You already trust any and every old Joe on the street with your life each and every time you leave your little fucking hovel. You trust them not to just haul off and beat you on the street. You trust them not to swerve into your lane and crash into you head-on in your little plastic shitbox on the highway. You trust them not to rob you while you’re at the ATM and they stand behind you. You actually put an awful-fucking-lot of trust into old Joe. You’re insane for not already realizing this, and that’s because you outright fucking refuse to confront reality yourself. You don’t trust any of us because you already don’t even trust yourself, for that matter.

          Seek professional help, and in the meantime, STFU and GTFO, period.

      7. avatar Excedrine says:

        @Chris — You don’t have a “right” to not worry. You don’t have a “right” to “feel” secure. You don’t have a right to be free from fear. You do, however, have a right to keep and bear arms. Use it and actually be secure or, like you’ve been likewise rightly and justly been fucking TOLD to do by people who know BETTER than you do, go take a chill pill and shut the fuck up.

        Contrary to what your TV has deluded you into believing, and never mind the fact that you’ve apparently ALLOWED your TV to so delude you, nobody here wants to shoot you. Either accept that fact, or don’t. It remains true no matter what the fuck comes rolling out of your deformed fucking cock holster.

  2. Authoritarianism, Yo! Just ask the NBA and THEIR Chinese Overlords!

  3. avatar retmsgt says:

    Still waiting for the firearm and ammunition manufacturers to tell California to piss off. Can’t sell to citizens? Don’t sell to government.

    1. avatar daveinwyo says:

      up vote.
      My thoughts when I read the headline.
      Stop all sales of guns & ammo to commiefornicas LEO’s.
      If a citizen can’t have ’em, neither can LEO’s and body guards/personal security.
      Add in banks and all other private security.

      1. avatar MouseGun says:

        They would almost certainly count that as a victory, and would either play it off as a progressive virtue signal (“our police forces don’t even carry gun. We’re so progressive”), or something along the lines of ,”cops are racist. I’m glad that they don’t have guns.”

      2. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

        The cops don’t have guns in England. I believe the people are fine with that.

        1. avatar Bill says:

          Yep. Especially as the murder rate continues to rise. Thanks for bringing us half a story.

        2. avatar CharlieKing1 says:

          We ain’t England…don’t forget Great Britain got rid of their guns after WWI, then they were begging us to supply them with guns when WWII started. Yep, I’m sure they’re just fine without them.

        3. avatar Country Boy says:

          and it’s why UK’s murder rate via guns, and now knives, is rising sharply…… because UK subjects and LEOs can’t legally own guns…..but the criminals have all the guns they want…they don’t follow the gun laws……

        4. avatar Southern Cross says:

          England started their disarmament process just after WW1. Several events influenced this. The Easter Uprising during the war. The Russian Revolution. And the post-war Irish Civil War.

        5. avatar Sven79 says:

          The average policeman in England doesn’t carry a gun, but that’s not to say that all of them don’t. When things get hairy, they bring in their version of a SWAT police team, and they are indeed heavily armed. Also, the average policeman in Northern Ireland is armed.

          Furthermore, if one goes by the technicalities of the current British firearms laws, pepper spray and mace (I think they call them “incapacitant sprays” or something like that) are restricted the same way as firearms, and are specifically listed under their version of the firearms act. The average British cop in the beat does carry some form of a spray deterrent.

        6. avatar clst says:

          You are obviously unaware of their Armed Response Teams, that are outfitted better than some of the SWAT teams in the United States.

      3. avatar eagle10 says:

        My thoughts exactly. All the firearms manufacturers should do what Barrett firearms did years ago. When Commifornia said the citizens could not have 50 cal guns, Barrett said OK. They stopped all sales and service to any agency in commy state that had their weapons. No new weapons and if their current ones need service – go pound salt.

        1. avatar onestab says:

          eagle10: Well said!

      4. avatar Huntmaster says:

        They need to stop selling all those little stars the police generals put on their uniforms.

        1. avatar onestab says:

          Now that’s funny! (and true).

        2. avatar Southern Cross says:

          If you go by the number of stars, some small town police chief outranks the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff of the military.

      5. avatar Dan says:

        Dave, all non LEO private Security including Body Guards are no different than you or I. The greater majority of them must purchase their own guns, pay for their own licenses and abide by all of the same draconian gun laws when not on duty. So they would suffer just like everyone else.

    2. avatar Hankus says:

      Kind of the opposite of what Colt did then.

      More like what Ronnie Barrett actually did!

    3. avatar Someone says:

      This. The gun industry should wage war right back at the commie state’s governments.

  4. avatar bryan1980 says:

    All this is is a poll tax for the 21st. century, crafted by the same political party that did the original one.

  5. avatar jwtaylor says:

    Mr. Sandberg, which is it?
    Will the purchase of firearms be “effectively obstructed” or will there be “new revenues” from purchases?
    Or have you simply already admitted your regressive scheme to disenfranchise the poor won’t work?

    1. avatar Dude says:

      It’s almost like the new revenues were an afterthought.

      1. avatar CalGunsMD says:

        If you DISCOURAGE people buying guns and DISCOURAGE people being in the business of selling guns, you will achieve your stated goal of less guns in your state, but you will NOT increase revenue. You will DECREASE it.

        1. avatar Bill says:

          Not if you do accounting like the special liberal souls that live in California. They will be asking the federal government to fund their losses.

      2. avatar Rusty - Die Ruthie Die - Chains says:

        No, the “new revenues” are the fig leaf they are hoping to use to get Roberts to agree that it is a Constitutionally permissible tax instead of a forbidden infringement on a right. Of course, if they haul Ruthie out feet first, that ends that argument.

    2. avatar napresto says:

      “Effectively obstructed” sounds a lot like “infringed” to me, as in “shall not be.” Even in these bleak times, I somehow think this plan, as proposed, wouldn’t pass constitutional muster.

      Then again, these are (in some ways) especially bleak times…

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        They will technically not be infringing on the right to keep and bear, only on the privilege to buy. Revenues will drop (which is OK since, theoretically gun ownership will also drop) but, as the idiot who thought this up failed to recognize, the black market will substantially expand. The net effect will be to eliminate lawful businesses and fund an underground untaxed economy.

        1. avatar Country Boy says:

          the last sentence is what CA polis is hoping for. They’ll all have their dirty little hands in it in one way or another. Remember Eric Holder and his scheme?

        2. avatar Someone says:

          Without the right to buy, there’s no right to keep and bear.

          Unfortunately, the SCOTUS left the prohibitive taxes of the NFA stand, so this kind of attack on the 2A is to be expected.
          How is this not an infringement? “You can freely vote for who whoever you want, but the ballot costs $1000! Worship any deity you like, but pay a hefty church tax first.”

          I agree with your notion on black market picking up the slack of supply. If something is artificially rendered too expensive, someone will get it for less, no paper work. See counterfeit cigarettes in NYC for example.

    3. avatar B says:

      Remember when they tried to outlaw less expensive firearms they called “Saturday Night Specials”, and politicized them as Guns of Crime? It failed because low income folks, including the elderly who lived in challenged neighborhoods that needed to protect themselves, weren’t able to afford more expensive systems.

      Screw these Tax Scheme Politicians and this guy, Joe Shitbird.

    4. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      They did that in Chicago. Upped the tax on cigarettes. It only hurt the poor without cars. Others went to Indiana to buy (bought fireworks, too).

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Same with handguns, after they imposed a $25 per handgun tax. Buyers simply went to the next county over.

    5. avatar PATRON49IFT says:

      He’s thinking it will be all good all around. More tax money plus fewer of those icky guns that those icky deplorable are always going on about.

      Since we want more tax money with which to buy votes; why not tax online financial services companies like Aspiration.com which he owns. Why, think of how much tax money we could collect if we taxed his transactions at say 75% and any profit at the same rate. Wouldn’t it be great?

  6. avatar Arandom Dude says:

    Arandom Dude: the rest of the country should expel the Democratik People’s Republik of Kalifornia from the union.

    1. avatar Cundalini says:

      Don’t give up on us just yet. One day it will all end, right here in sunny CA.

      1. avatar Firingpin says:

        Yeah when the wildfires burn the place to the ground

    2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      @Arandom,

      Read my earlier comment below in which I replied to someone else who said the same thing you did.

      1. avatar Arandom Dude says:

        You mean Serge? I’m not saying what he said. He said Trump should send in the military to round up Ds, I’m saying we should show California the door.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          No, my reply to Green Mtn. Boy regarding the comments from the haters who have written off CA entirely and abandon those of us who live here and fight the good fight.

    3. avatar Southern Cross says:

      It is a tossup on who would claim it first. China or Mexico. Although the state’s progressives would prefer Mexico as it would right perceived historical wrongs. Then New Mexico and Texas would claimed under the same historical precedent.

  7. avatar Chris Morton says:

    The entire firearms and ammunition industry should cut California off cold.

    The next time the LAPD and Torrance PD try to murder a couple of paper delivery women and a surfer, let them use pointed sticks. Maybe they can hire John Cleese as an expert pointed stick consultant.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      +1 for the Michael Dorner reference. That’s my go-to example whenever someone tells me “the cops are better trained than regular citizens”. More than 100 rounds were fired at those two women delivering newspapers, who were (1) not a large man by himself, (2) not in the make, model, or color truck Dorner was BOLO’d for, (3) were driving away from the cops, and (4) never presented any danger to anyone.

      The cops all fired upon innocent citizens without positively identifying a threat, yet no charges were brought because they were all – wait for it….wait for it… – under duress due to extreme fear for their lives. Oh, and only two bullets found the targets. No news articles ever brought up the question of the extreme danger brought by all the other bullets that kept flying down the street to end up only-God-knows-where.

      1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

        Isn’t that why they gave the cops 10lb triggers in NYC? There were too many ND’s and accidental shootings of bystanders?

        1. avatar Keith says:

          Yours is a peculiar definition of “accidental” when applied here.

          “Welded in place” would be a better precaution in cases like this, don’t you think?

        2. avatar Chris Morton says:

          There was nothing “accidental” about the attempted murders of Emma Hernandez and Margie Carranza by the LAPD and David Perdue by the Torrance PD. Those shots (and the ramming of Perdue’s truck) were 100% INTENTIONAL. The LAPD didn’t have 100+ “negligent discharges” into the women’s truck.

          Lesson learned: You can try to murder anyone for any reason (or no reason at all) if you’re “scared”… as long as you’re a cop.

          I’ll bet Hernandez, Carranza and Perdue are plenty scared of cops. I wonder what would happen if they shot cops and tried to use that as an excuse… despite the fact that one of them was actually SHOT by a cop.

        3. avatar Hannibal says:

          The “NY trigger” (which is now 12lb- aka NY trigger II if I remember correctly) is a stupid idea thought up by people who know almost nothing about guns to try and solve ‘negligent discharges’. But it fails in two ways. The first is that many bad shootings by police are not negligent discharges at all, but simply a wrong decision. There are some negligent discharges but there is not enough difference between an 8 and 12lb trigger to stop most NDs- see, Gurley, Akai. You probably don’t want a 4lb trigger for patrol but a ‘normal’ weight is fine. There is enough difference in the trigger pull of a 12lb-er to make a gun less accurate, which is not exactly a positive.

          Training and candidate selection is how you stop NDs, not screwing with good triggers. But training and candidate selection is hard.

  8. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Well California gun owners. What are you going to do about this? One of the many things I learned while growing up in california is that the people who support “gay rights”, drug legalization and no national borders, are also the same ones who have never supported the 2nd or 1st amendment.

    And they have created the biggest Welfare Industrial Complex in the nation.

    “Op-Ed: Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America?”
    https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-jackson-california-poverty-20180114-story.html

    https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/jan/20/chad-mayes/true-california-has-nations-highest-poverty-rate-w/

    Gov Reagan who signed the Mulford Act is dead. But the people who run California now long ago have embraced the most racist gun control law in modern US history.

    1. avatar Kyle says:

      Not so fast there Chris T

      I support 1 and 2, but not 3.

      And I’m pretty good with THE 1st and 2nd am.

      Not every Libertarian hates guns, in fact…most dont.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        to kyle
        There aren’t enough Pro Second Amendment Pro First Amendment Libertarians to fill a bucket of spit. Libertarians are no longer Republicans who want to smoke dope. They are socialists who want the smoke dope. And that’s all they really care about.

        In their own words “it’s about putting things into their own body”.

        And they certainly have that now in California. But no guns.

        1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

          You clearly know f*ckall about Libertarianism and probably haven’t met an actual libertarian in your life. You ought to stop speaking on the matter

        2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Chris,

          Libertarianism is the focus on individual freedoms without government interference. I myself am a conservative who leans more toward the libertarian side than the classic “Republican party” side. Government should be small, lean, and nowhere seen. Only for the basics, not for dictating how many gallons of water our toilets should flush nationwide.

        3. avatar rt66paul says:

          You are so wrong. Libertarians are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. They want the right to pursue happiness without some church lady objecting or some socially conservative idiot telling him what not to do. I am a Christian and I am fine with these freedoms. Who am I to tell someone he is wrong if he is not hurting anyone else. We Christians call that “living in the world”.

        4. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          @rt66paul,

          So you don’t preach the Gospel, though you call yourself a Christian? The essence of the Gospel is the notion that we’re inherently in the “wrong” and need a Savior. Would be very interesting to hear how you tiptoe around that one.

          Raising children also involves differentiating between Right and Wrong behaviors as you train them up. Do you simply let them do whatever they want?

      2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        to anyone
        Show me a Libertarian who supports the right to block /protest an abortion clinic. Just as Libertarians support protest/ blocking a military recruiting station. Send me the Link.

        Those of you who smoke a great deal of dope have perhaps been asleep for the past three or four years and missed out on the news.

        “Kimber Gun Rights Bulletin: Libertarians for Gun Control?”
        https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/libertarians-gun-control/

        More Libertarians for gun control
        https://www.cato.org/policy-report/septemberoctober-2016/gun-control-grounds-compromise

        Libertarians for the supersizing of government
        “The Libertarian Case for the European Union
        EU break up would lead to more nationalism and protectionism”
        https://reason.com/archives/2014/09/09/the-libertarian-case-for-the-european-un

        Libertarians equate unfettered drug use with Liberty. Getting intoxicated does not provide or protect Liberty. Having Arms is what protects Liberty. And having Arms is not a priority among Libertarians. Legalizing drugs is more important to them.

        You got the drugs. You got the sex in public on days the government gives you permission. You can even defecate in public. But No guns for you. I know many folks are very happy and satisfied in the golden state.

        Not all but many Libertarians are simply not being honest on TTAG.

        1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

          You’re misinformed as to what a libertarian even is, let alone what “is more important to them” or what “many” are doing… Talk to one or two, ask them some questions rather than continue cherry-picking news articles that agree with your existing perspective and claiming it’s gospel.

          Sincerely,

          a libertarian who doesn’t do drugs

      3. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        to rt66paul
        “They want the right to pursue happiness without some church lady objecting or some socially conservative idiot telling him what not to do.”

        Hopefully with god’s help the Libertarians, Liberals, and the Left. The homosexuals, the atheists, etc, etc, I pray to god that these people will never be free from the criticism of christians. Or muslims or Mormons. Or any believing person. Hopefully in America we will always be able to use our 1st amendment to freely speak our minds about ANY PERSON. ABOUT ANY SUBJECT.

        Some people on TTAG wonder why I say the things I say???

        When I was told as a black children by the white three L’s that the KKK had a right to march through black neighborhoods while carrying guns. And as I said before these same people openly embraced the racist gun control Mulford Act.

        These same people would also say the KKK has a right to burn a cross on the private property of a black person. Or anyone else they don’t like. If you don’t know the case just ask and I’ll give you a Link.

    2. avatar California Richard says:

      Trump got more votes from California than any other state (except for Texas). More guns are sold in California than any other state (except for texas). This is a ploy by the (D) monster to erode both of those things in to oblivion. California is so mismanaged by the (D) monster that, at this point, if they don’t drive sane normies, (R)’s, and conservatives out of the state before the election, then the electorate may flip on them.

  9. avatar No one of consequence says:

    A lot of small companies in the firearms industry are located in SoCal. There are some good reasons for that and I realize that many don’t have a simple way to move.

    I really like supporting small businesses. But I think I might need to stop buying from CA-based firms, because I don’t want to give any more tax revenue to the CA state government. Or to LA, for that matter.

  10. avatar Dave G. says:

    It was Chief Justice John Marshall who said, “The power to tax involves the power to destroy.” What they have in California is not a new idea.

  11. avatar dph says:

    The Gun Industry should declare economic war on California. FIFY.
    No more new guns or gun parts to any California government operation.

  12. avatar pwrserge says:

    The federal government should declare actual war on the state of California. It’s long past time Trump sent in the Marines.

    1. avatar SoCalJack says:

      What would the Marines do if they were sent in? BTW, living in Socialist CA, I know first hand how F’d up the CA Dem Politicians are.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        For starters, they could confiscate all of the evil gunz and ammo from political security details. Then they could move on to disarm the racist police. Then we check back in to see how the people in charge really feel about gunz and police.

      2. avatar pwrserge says:

        Round up everyone with a -D after their name and ship them off to GITMO.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Careful with that line of thinking. That’s exactly what Hitler did to those “dirty people” he didn’t like. Rounded them and shipped them off to camps. Didn’t end well for anyone involved.

          What we need to do is educate the masses better so they can vote better.

        2. avatar Ogre says:

          There are already Marines in CA, at Camp Pendleton (1st Marine Division and other units – maybe 50K max) and Miramar (near San Diego, a major air base – maybe 10K). In a state the size of CA, I doublt they’d be able to do much, unless they got help from right-minded people who don’t live in the Lib/Prog/Dem coastal strip. Or maybe the Army, who also has bases in the state. I had to wonder who Joe Sanberg is and why should I listen to him? I found out: well-to-do Progessive Liberal with all that entails (check), lives in San Francisco area (check), probably has little to do with the plebeians (check). So the guy fits the classic anti-gun pie-in-the-sky SJW profile and I could care less what he has to say. He’s just one amongst thousands in the state with similar ideas. But I do agree that if CA declares economic warfare on its POTG and the gun manufacturers/retailers, they would be wise to cut the CA government off from all gun sales/service and see how they do. IMHO, the state (with typical efficiency) will probably try to erect a state gun manufactory just for the police and national guard, and law and order will go down the tubes. The invigorated black market in guns/ammo will supply the people, or they will just go out-of-state to get what they need.

    2. avatar daveinwyo says:

      Absolutely not!
      They would immediately surrender and demand foreign aid to “rebuild”.

  13. avatar LKB says:

    I wonder what Mr. Sanberg would say to other states adopting his “effectively prohibit by severely taxing” logic on things *they* do not like.

    For instance, what if Texas decided to impose a $10,000 tax on each elective abortion procedure. Would that be OK with you, Binky?

    The good news is that this sort of punitive taxation of the exercise of a constitutional right has been struck down many times, so it’s unlikely to ever be seriously considered.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Interesting line of logic. Assess a massive tax on a procedure that always results in the death of a human being, in order to fund state programs to educate the public on the dangers of that procedure for the purpose of saving human beings. After all, if only one life is saved, isn’t it worth it? For the children, and all that?

      Oh wait, the Dems don’t like that, even though it’s the exact same thing as their taxes and programs on guns, to save the children?

  14. avatar A says:

    Im confused.
    Lets place a tax on guns to the point where no one can afford to buy them, then, lets fund safety measures and buybacks with said funds that were not collected because no guns were sold……because no one bought guns…..?
    I might have been on board if they said they would fund projects to clean the human feces off the streets. Oh wait. no i wouldn’t!

  15. avatar BusyBeef says:

    This will effectively create a healthy black market.

    1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

      Further enlarge more likely but yes it will.

      1. avatar SoCalJack says:

        In CA, a legally purchased gun before taxes cost 5-10% (I.e. Glock19 not on sale, $520) than most other states. Then there’s tax and registration. If the CA Gov keeps this up, it would lead to a vibrant firearm, and ammo, black market…and mass boating accident reports.

        1. avatar Dude says:

          “High taxes and complex rules often lead to corruption, because people pay bribes to get around the rules.”
          https://reason.com/video/stossel-lessons-from-africa/

          A fine example would be getting a carry permit in NYC. Unless you’re well-connected and/or pay the bribe, good luck getting a permit.

  16. avatar Maxpowers says:

    Doesn’t california currently have a problem with out of control violent crime, poverty, drug problems and now a resurge of medieval diseases that are slowly becoming resistant to treatments.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Just in some areas, i.e., anywhere where the homeless gather as to drugs and (mostly) nonviolent crime, major urban areas for gang violence (generally unchanged despite all the gun control efforts).

  17. avatar FedUp says:

    If an 11% tax on a constitutionally guaranteed civil right is legal, then why not an 1100% tax? If you don’t want a tent full of camels, don’t let the camel stick his nose in your tent.

    (actually, 1100% is pretty much the size of the 1934 tax on short barrel shotguns and .22 Buntline carbines)

    1. avatar Arandom Dude says:

      I’ll bite: the 11% tax is (probably) Constitutional because it is pretty small- I doubt anyone who can afford a $200 shotgun will be unable to afford a $222 shotgun- and because it was designed to raise revenue for something reasonably related to guns. A 50-75% tax (or your hypothetical 1100% tax) would be un-Constitutional because it is intended to deny a right to people of limited means. And yes, the $200 tax on NFA items was in-Constitutional, but Roosevelt had cucked the Supreme Court, and all decisions from that time period should be regarded with extreme suspicion.

    2. avatar Ogre says:

      The federal excise tax (10% on pistols, 11% on rifles, as well as on ammo) that Mr. Sanberg refers to was passed in 1937 as the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (aka the Pittman-Robertson Act). This tax was actually requested and backed by the hunters and sportsmen of America as a way to provide funds (which can only be used for wildlife restroration or hunter safety training) to preserve/acquire habitat so wildlife (particularly game species) would not die out, and hunters would have something to hunt. As I understand it, this excise tax also applies to other outdoor equipment (such as fishing equipment). What Sanberg and others are proposing is a punitive tax to drive the firearms industry out of California. As noted by others, the proposed tax might have the effect of driving manufacturers and dealers out of business, but this would undoubtedly be replaced by a robust and popular black market in firearms, much the same as the black market on liquor during Prohibition. And what will the California government do about the large number of firearms already in private hands in California? People don’t obey the law because it’s the law, but because it makes sense to them. IMHO, there would be massive non-compliance. And how would California replace the lost revenue streams from the manufacturing and sales it eliminates?

      1. avatar Austin says:

        Yes! This isn’t known well enough to gun owners, fisherman, archers, etc. The Pittman-Robertson act has done wonderful things for wildlife. People don’t get that we have wildlife because we want them to be here; Elk were once extirpated from the bighorn mountains and now their population is healthy and strong. Wildlife would undoubtedly suffer without that revenue source. So it frustrates me when they want to impose a tax over the top of the Pittman-Robertson tax. The left who claims to be friends of nature threw a fit in Washington state when they tried to enact a small backpack tax to help increase wildlife revenue.

    3. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

      And while you are at it, why not bring back the poll taxes. They are only a minor inconvenience. Just another source of government revenue and only a “common sense” infringement on a constitutional right. Those voting machines are expensive after all. Not like they will be 1100% or anything like that at all, they will be reasonable poll taxes for the children of course.

  18. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    I can’t wait for the celebration the day Commiefornia slides off into the Pacific ocean,to be seen or heard from never more..

    1. avatar daveinwyo says:

      Salt water fishing in the foothills?
      I would support that!

    2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      As I’ve said before, we wince at people like you who claim to support POTG, then completely disregard your 2A brethren here in CA as we fight to retain our rights. While the two opposing sides are duking it out on the football field, you’re somewhere on the sidelines choosing which condiments to put on your hot dog. You claim you’re part of the event, but completely worthless in regards to the struggle and the eventual outcome. Go home.

      We Californians know the importance of this fight for our rights more than you ever will. I was born here, I’ve lived my entire life here, and I’ll continue to fight to defend and reclaim my home.

      If the same nonsense was happening in your own state, would you want all of us POTG to write you off and claim you’re not worth fighting for anymore?

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        I don’t want Cali to suffer some mass catastrophe, Like the NorComs nuking LA or San Fran, for one simple reason –

        The millions of radioactive survivors will pour into flyover country and start voting Leftist. Buh-bye Wyoming, the Dakotas and the others.

        Crap like that will turn this country Leftist faster than anything else…

      2. You do not understand.

        According to these people, MLK, Jr. was wrong to fight for civil rights.

      3. avatar CWT says:

        Democrats have super majorities in both houses in California and the Republicans are losing seats regularly. Your house is on fire and all you have is a garden hose all we can do is try to keep it from spreading.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Fun fact…for the first time in our state’s history, every single state-level office is currently held by a Democrat (Governor, Lt. Gov., Comptroller, Attorney General, both Senators, etc.). This means that they own ALL the problems we’re experiencing, as the Republicans haven’t been able to exert any political force for two full decades now. Homeless people streaming into the state and crapping all over our sidewalks to ruin tourism? High taxes with discussions for more? Illegals overrunning society and committing crimes without penalty? Gun control and the stripping of Constitutional rights? And now statewide rent control? All the fallout is being cast at the Dems’ feet, and they have nowhere to hide.

          The pendulum will swing back at some point.

        2. avatar Matt Richardson says:

          @I Haz:

          Unfortunately not before the Detroit effect sets in and the majority of the state is in shambles. The growth in population in California is currently unsustainable, the loss of businesses grows apace, and over half the people in the state have considered or are considering leaving for greener pastures. There simply won’t be enough people and money left over to do anything with what’s left when it all comes tumbling down.

          On the bright side, I’ll happily by up every house on the street I grew up on in Fontana for $100 a piece just so I can piss on the doorsteps of all the people I couldn’t stand growing up. It’d be cool to give houses back to a couple of good people who lost them too.

    3. avatar CWT says:

      Not all of California just the area starting 20 miles north of Sacramento to the Mexican border and sixty miles inland.

  19. avatar GunnyGene says:

    It’s an opinion piece. First Amendment applies. Doesn’t mean anyone has to listen to his bullshit.

  20. avatar Bubba J says:

    As I’ve stated many times. It’s about money. They don’t care about public safety. All they care about is if they can generate new revenue streams & removing any obstacles to that by any means. If they could they would bring back slavery…oh wait they already did in the form of for profit prisons.

  21. avatar Kyle says:

    What they should do is just declare independence.

    They’ve nothing in common with the rest of the nation anyway. Both sides would be happier

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      A peaceful separation is *vastly* more palatable than the alternative…

      1. What we need is military occupation, just like Reconstruction.

  22. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Hell yeah! Fuck poor people. They don’t need guns to protect their miserable lives. Probably better off dead anyway. Their own damn fault for being poor and having children, etc. Guns are for rich folk.

  23. avatar Dan says:

    That’s a despicable idea. Pricing guns out of the reach of the poor and only allowing the rich and criminals to have them.

  24. avatar B says:

    Fuck these Tax Scheme Politicians and this guy, Joe Shitbird.

  25. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Not infringing would also mean no excessive taxes. I still wonder why the left is so intent on seeing a demonstration of why the founders codified the Second.

  26. avatar James A. Farmer says:

    https://www.heraldandnews.com/members/forum/letters/legislators-taking-aim-at-gun-owners/article_48b02e13-c486-5f19-802b-b64c5d145d10.html

    The above link is to a letter of mine which ran in the Wednesday, April 19th, 2017 Klamath Falls Herald and News. I make the valid point in letter that the “anti-gun/civilian disarmament” socialist agenda in America is predicated upon political deceit, class warfare, and big money. Bottom line: I haven’t seen an anti-gun politician yet who wasn’t deceitful crooked immoral treasonous and socialist!

  27. avatar strych9 says:

    Right, because the guys who roll with gold chains and shit AFTER laying out $10K+ for a kilo of product are going to be SO affected by these sort of taxes.

    And of course the suppliers of those kilos, the dudes pushing 100’s of kilos at a time would never, ever undercut the US market with tax free firearms. I mean how would you get metal, wood and plastic past a dog?

  28. avatar Keith says:

    “It’s a win-win….”

    Who are the two winners, again?

  29. So the mask comes off.

    He admits to wanting to reduce gun ownErship by the general population- specially the black population.

    they are no longer pretending that they just want to disarm the gangbanger and the street thug.

  30. avatar Read_Siege says:

    (((Sanberg))) is all I needed to read to know where these proposals are coming from.

  31. avatar Kap says:

    Fortunately life experiences differ, some positive and some negative, unfortunately you have people on both sides that are expert blow hards and will tell you so, {their way or hi-way} yet each side my have a kernel of truth, problem is you need really big filters

  32. avatar Robert Messmer says:

    Chris says Quote: “You want any American without a criminal record to be able to carry a gun in public, and that involves trusting any old Joe on the street with my life. Sorry. Never going to agree to that. It’s insane, and personally, I can’t believe you all can’t see that.” Except that you already do. See all of those guided missiles whizzing by? Any one of those, driven by any old Joe on the street could use one of those guided missiles to kill you. They can even get to you inside of stores or your own home, which you would know if you watched the news.

  33. avatar Joe Scumberg says:

    Just imagine if they started taxing flights with underage girls. We’d make millions off of Clinton and Biden alone!

  34. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

    “Those who do decide to sell guns may opt to hand down the extra fees to their customers, making gun ownership even more unaffordable.”
    Ie., making gun ownership even more of a burden to those financially disadvantaged, and more likely in need of protecting themselves.

  35. avatar adverse6 says:

    Wouldn’t it be easier to just steal firearms and ammo? No, wait, there is a law against that too. California leads the nation in law abiding criminals.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email