Seattle, Washington joined Cook County and Chicago in imposing a tax upon the Second Amendment. There is on other way to explain it. The National Rifle Association is pursuing lawsuits against this tax plan in both locations.
The expressed rationale by these anti-gun governments is to provide recompense for victims of gun violence and do research as well. The actual reason is to make guns and ammunition less and less affordable to the general public. This attack on the Second Amendment is devious at best. It is a back door method of gun control. Chicago and Cook County are examples of how badly this has already failed.
As Written By Jass Shaw for Hot Air:
Will Gun Tax Survive Challenge?
Seattle’s controversial tax on guns and ammunition puts the city at the center of a dispute over whether municipalities can tax firearms or if states alone have that power.
This article was originally published at Stateline, an initiative of The Pew Charitable Trusts, and was written by Elaine S. Povich.
SEATTLE — To Mike Coombs, owner of the Outdoor Emporium, a hunting, fishing and camping store, Seattle’s gun tax is unfair and aimed at driving him out of the city, if not out of business. To Seattle City Councilor Tim Burgess, the tax is a good way to fund medical research on reducing gun violence injuries.
The two represent the opposing poles in the debate over Seattle’s controversial tax on guns and ammunition that took effect Jan. 1 and puts this city at the center of a dispute over whether municipalities can tax firearms to pay for what they see as a public benefit or states alone have the power to regulate and tax guns.
The dispute, which emerged briefly last year in Baltimore and continues in Cook County, Illinois, involves issues such as whether the taxes are designed to suppress gun sales or drive sales out of a city or county, and whether gun violence is a public health issue that justifies taxes on firearms and ammunition to help pay for their consequences in the same fashion as taxes on cigarettes and alcohol.