Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a series of new gun control measures on Tuesday, along with a new 11 percent excise tax on purchases of ammunition, firearms, and firearm “precursor” parts.
The new 11 percent tax on ammunition, guns, and gun components will go into effect on July 1, 2024. The state excise tax would add to an 11 percent excise tax the federal government already imposes on such purchases.
The new law is dubbed the “Gun Violence Prevention and School Safety Act,” and calls for all revenue from the firearm excise tax to go toward a variety of gun violence prevention and research programs, as well as a school safety program operated by California’s Department of Education. The legislation lays out payment allocations for the first $160 million in revenues under the excise tax program.
During a press conference, Mr. Newsom described the firearm-related excise tax as “more of a sin tax,” that reflects the societal costs brought on by gun violence.
“The health-related costs, the costs borne by the taxpayers for gun violence is off the charts,” he added. “Any fiscal conservative should be making that case. The cost of prosecution, defense, the cost of incarceration of people involved in gun violence is extraordinary, and so I think this is a pretty modest investment in prevention and reducing those costs ultimately.”
Along with the new tax, Mr. Newsom also enacted a bill that limited the range of public places where people with firearm carry permits can go with their weapons. He also introduced a number of other gun-related measures on Tuesday, including a bill revising California’s pistol microstamp regulations, and a bill that creates a process by which courts can prohibit people with mental health problems from purchasing or possessing firearms.
Gun Rights Groups Challenge New California Laws
Various gun rights groups have criticized the new California gun laws, including the new excise tax.
The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) has argued that increased firearms excise taxes make it more expensive for law-abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional rights. The NRA-ILA said the increased costs brought on by California’s excise tax bill would discourage gun owners from practicing and becoming more proficient and safe with their firearms, including for self-defense.
The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has also cast the firearms excise tax as an “elitist” policy that disadvantages less prosperous citizens and creates a financial barrier to those who wish to exercise their gun rights.
The FPC has already filed a lawsuit challenging one of the other bills Mr. Newsom signed on Tuesday, which seeks to restrict where people with firearm carry permits can take their guns.
“SB2 restricts where persons with licenses to carry a concealed weapon may legally exercise their constitutional right to wear, carry, or transport firearms. And it does so in ways that are fundamentally inconsistent with the Second Amendment,” the FPC complaint (pdf) states.
The FPC’s legal challenge to the California bill restricting where firearms can be carried comes after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, that the Second Amendment includes the right to carry firearms in public, and that states must establish objective criteria for either allowing or barring people from carrying their firearms openly.
In March, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction (pdf) barring California from imposing its pistol microstamping requirement, as gun rights groups contended that it’s not technologically feasible to broadly implement the type of microstamping components the state of California is seeking.
Last week, a federal judge reaffirmed a prior ruling that California’s 10-round magazine capacity limit is unconstitutional.
During his Tuesday press conference, Mr. Newsom acknowledged the array of new gun regulations he enacted may not survive under judicial scrutiny.
“[The new laws] may not be enough if the federal courts are throwing them out in a post-Bruen construct,” he said. “It may mean nothing, in fact. You may be setting up false expectations that somehow, these laws will withstand the scrutiny of a ‘history-only’ framework, a 1790s framework when there were a few million people living in the United States—not 332 million, or whatever it is today. It’s comedic.”
Mr. Newsom went on to describe last year’s Bruen decision as “devastating.”
“Don’t get me started about how corrupt the Supreme Court of the United States is,” he stated.
