Cali proposes yearly firearms registration and fee…

[delaware_export]

Proposed. Given calis history, it’ll pass fairly easily.

and if it gets too expensive, you can turn your firearm in to the .gov

FCA!

Bill Text - SB-1160 Firearms.

leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

 

[remrug]

Just think of all the money the state will make off of the many gang members.

 

[Sirex]

I think the best thing now, is for California to break off and slide into the ocean.

I want to say, there's no way that could pass. But, it's California, so we know it probably will.
It says;
"This bill would require every firearm in the state, except those specifically exempted, to be annually registered with the department. The bill would require the registrant to annually pay a fee, as specified, to be deposited into a special fund that is continuously appropriated to the department for the express purpose of carrying out the administration and enforcement of the firearm registry."

And then it says;
"The bill would also, consistent with existing federal law, prohibit the use of certain federal records in establishing or enforcing the registry."

So, do they have some other background check there, other than the federal 4473 that would be used in creating their registry?

And, I don't see any cost pertaining to the annual fee. Is it $50/gun? $100? $500?
I'm betting they'll see how much support this bill has, then decide how much to rape the citizen for.

 

[babalou]

gotta pay for all those illegals. oh wait, line their own pockets.

 

[Cool_Moo5e]

Comifornia just pricing out the poor as usual then has the stupidity to ask why they have so many homeless and tons of crime.

 

[rondon600]

Long past time for a special tax stamp to receive abortions. And all butchers that perform such procedures need FFL style licensing / documents for their work.

 

[6-Pack]

They start a religion tax yet?

 

[Steel Hunter]

They start a religion tax yet?

Reverse poll tax. If you don't vote for us, we will tax you.

 

[85MikeTPI]

Maybe MD will try this with NFA machineguns? Oh wait...

 

[delaware_export]

Next up in Cali per FPC twit feed

permit to own any gun , in addition to register, not just register… so double taxation

5y permit 25$, per the post

 

[ddestruel]

Senator Portantino Introduces Bill Requiring Annual Registration of Firearms

For Immediate Release: February 14, 2024 Contact: Lerna Shirinian, (818) 409-0400 Senator Portantino Introduces Bill Requiring Annual Registration of Firearms Sacramento, CA – Senat

sd25.senate.ca.gov

I wonder if this isn’t a bridge too far for even the most brazen of courts. A state implementing an annual use tax /or a possession tax creatively defined as a reoccurring “fee” for private property?

Essentially they are calling it a A fee for a state mandated service…..a fee for the right to retain and use your property.

In this case private law abiding citizen looses the right to possess owned private property intended for self defense purposes (2nd amendment) or the person surrenders privacy (4th amendment?) and then they are forced into an annual fee scheme on that disclosed private property (5th amendment). In this case No annual government service was requested instead it is mandated.

In sheetz vs Eldorado county the court ventured in to the discussion of the state, disguising a tax, simply by changing terminology. One example was a bridge fee, park use fee or toll road fee is paid per use of the direct government service it’s just the use of your own property. The state charges a registration fee for a private vehicle, but only when that private vehicle is operated or occupies / uses a public road not if it is stored in your garage.

With a federal tax stamp to own a NFA item, you pay a one time fee for the registration. But not an annual tax to retain possession. I wonder if the nfa tax scheme could be indirectly imperiled by California going so far.

It seems like this bill would collide and involve the cases and many arguments of sheetz vs el dorado county and Minneapolis star tribune v commissioner

Minneapolis Star Tribune Co. v. Commissioner - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Court split over California man’s takings clause dispute - SCOTUSblog

Despite a suggestion by Justice Neil Gorsuch that there was “radical agreement” in a California man’s challenge to the constitutionality of the “traffic impact mitigation” fee that he was required to pay when building his home, the justices appeared divided at oral argument on Tuesday. There may hav

www.scotusblog.com

 

[gamer_jim]

They start a religion tax yet?

They do in Germany:

"Members of certain churches must pay the church tax (Kirchensteuer). It’s 9% of your income tax, or 8% in Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg."

What is the church tax (Kirchensteuer)?

A type of income tax paid by members of certain churches.

allaboutberlin.com

 

[delaware_export]

As noted. One proposal as you note is taxing the guns. The other, noted above is taxing the owner. Basically a license to merely own, currently proposed at same rate as license to purchase … 5y/25$. what could go rong?

And they’re proposing doing an insurance thing for home owners and renters, and requiring that insurers ask about guns on policies and then report the info to .gov. supposedly to be anonymized and not open to public. But remember, the did the public exposure of other info, and that’s going through the courts now

that seems like a ?5th? Amendment violation, requiring you to disclose info that will or could be used by the .gov . Even if indirectly, it is still gov forcing the question be asked and the results given to gov.

Senator Portantino Introduces Bill Requiring Annual Registration of Firearms

For Immediate Release: February 14, 2024 Contact: Lerna Shirinian, (818) 409-0400 Senator Portantino Introduces Bill Requiring Annual Registration of Firearms Sacramento, CA – Senat

sd25.senate.ca.gov

I wonder if this isn’t a bridge too far for even the courts. A state implementing an annual use tax /or a possession tax defined as a reoccurring fee for private property?

Essentially they are calling it a A fee for a state provided service…..a fee for the right to retain and use your property. In this case private law abiding citizens loose privacy and are forced into an annual fee scheme on private property. No annual government service was requested instead it is mandated. In sheets vs Eldorado county the court ventured in to the discussion of the state, disguising a tax, simply by changing terminology. One example was a bridge fee, park use fee or toll road fee is paid per use of the direct government service it’s just the use of your own property. The state charges a registration fee for a private vehicle, but only when that private vehicle is operated or occupies / uses a public road.

With a federal tax stamp to own a NFA item, you pay a one time fee for the registration. But not an annual tax to retain possession. I wonder if the nfa tax scheme could be indirectly imperiled by California going so far.

It seems like this bill would collide and involve the cases and many arguments of sheetz vs el dorado county and Minneapolis star tribune v commissioner

Minneapolis Star Tribune Co. v. Commissioner - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Court split over California man’s takings clause dispute - SCOTUSblog

Despite a suggestion by Justice Neil Gorsuch that there was “radical agreement” in a California man’s challenge to the constitutionality of the “traffic impact mitigation” fee that he was required to pay when building his home, the justices appeared divided at oral argument on Tuesday. There may hav

www.scotusblog.com