Sacramento, CA — A legal dispute has risen in California where a coalition of Second Amendment advocacy groups, alongside two private citizens, are suing to overturn the state’s new 11% excise tax on firearms, firearm components, and ammunition. The lawsuit, which was filed in San Diego, asserts that imposing such a tax on these items infringes upon constitutional rights.
The suit, titled Jaymes v. Maduros, points to historic precedents where the U.S. Supreme Court has decided that constitutional rights should not be taxed. The plaintiffs have drawn parallels to the Murdock v. Pennsylvania case, where the court ruled in favor of a Jehovah’s Witness who challenged a required fee to solicit door-to-door, affirming that the imposition of such a fee infringed upon religious freedoms.
The plaintiffs include notable entities such as the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), the National Rifle Association (NRA), and the California Rifle & Pistol Association. They have lodged their complaint against Nicolas Maduros, in his capacity as Director of the California Department of Tax & Fee Administration. The advocacy groups argue that the tax is a targeted measure aimed at suppressing the rights of gun owners in California.
Brandon Combs, President of the FPC, has vocally criticized the tax, labeling it as a discriminatory act akin to historical laws that marginalized specific groups. “The Constitution is clear in its protection of our rights, and we are committed to challenging what we view as a flagrant violation,” Combs remarked in his condemnation of the tax’s imposition.
The legal complaint detailed by the groups suggests a slippery slope, positing that allowing this taxation to stand could set a precedent for the state to likewise tax other constitutional rights heavily, potentially up to 100%, particularly those out of favor with current government leadership.
In a contrasting view, the tax, effective from July 1, has been defended by state officials as a necessary step toward funding effective gun violence prevention programs. Daniel Villaseñor, a spokesman for California Governor Gavin Newsom, described the tax as a modest contribution towards initiatives that have proven effective at reducing gun violence. He noted that California ranks highly in terms of gun safety.
However, critics, such as Randy Kozuch, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, argue the tax is a direct attack on the Second Amendment. “This is not just about revenue; this is about undermining the fundamental rights protected by our Constitution,” Kozuch stated, expressing a sentiment shared among the plaintiff groups.
The lawsuit also references the recent New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, suggesting the ruling aligns with their argument by underscoring the inherent right to own and carry firearms.
As the legal battle unfolds, the implications are significant, not just for California but nationally, as outcomes could set precedents affecting how states can impose taxes or regulations on constitutional rights. The case continues to draw attention and stirs debate over where the lines are drawn between public safety measures and constitutional freedoms.