Christopher J. Marier

Seven States Move to Tax Guns and Ammo

—

by

Christopher Marier
in

Last September California became the first state to levy an excise tax on firearms and ammunition, in the amount of 11 percent, when Governor Gavin Newsom signed the bill into law. Since then, lawmakers in more than a half-dozen other states have introduced similar bills to tax the gun industry to support hospitals, violence intervention and prevention programs, and services and compensation for victims of gun violence.

Colorado, Vermont, New York, Massachusetts, Washington, and New Mexico are among the states where lawmakers are considering similar bills, a Trace review found. Most are modeled after California’s 11 percent tax on firearm manufacturers and retailers.

California was the first state to enact such an excise tax, but at least three municipalities have also done so: Seattle and Tacoma, Washington, and Cook County, Illinois. Pennsylvania also adds a $3 surcharge on firearm sales to support the state’s background check system.

Full story: Seven States Move to Tax Guns and Ammo

Comments

3 responses to “Seven States Move to Tax Guns and Ammo”

  1. Dylan McCall

    The introduction of the new tax on guns and ammo in these states can create conflict because of people with pro views to this and people with con views to this. People who support this will say that these taxes could provide funding for hospitals, violence intervention programs, and victim compensation. Opponents of this tax will say that it is a punishment to law-abiding gun owners and businesses trying to defend themselves and others. While California and other states have started taxing on guns and ammunition, there still will be a debate on this issue and whether the tax is effective or not in lowering violence rates. This issue is complex and it could cause tension and violence between different political groups.

    Reply
    1. Chloe Lemos

      Dylan, I agree with your statement. With states introducing new taxes on guns and ammo what’s not to say there will be a rise in conflict? On one side you could agree with the states introducing new taxes on guns and ammo. On the other side, you could disagree with the states introducing new taxes on guns and ammo. Many may see this new tax as a punishment. With this people who are genuinely trying to protect themselves or their business will be punished from this new tax. How are we to say that conflict and tension will not rise?

      Reply
  2. Stephanie Troyan

    The discussion about increased taxes on firearms and ammunition that certain states have introduced has sparked an array of conversations. Opponents view these taxes as punitive, while supporters contend that they might be used to pay for necessary services. How can legislators make sure that the public safety and private rights are balanced in these taxes? Will these taxes actually have an impact on reducing the rate of violence, or are there other ways to accomplish this? What steps may be made to lessen any negative consequences and how might these taxes affect companies in the weapons industry? What part do these taxes play in tackling systemic problems like mental health access and gun violence? How can communities approach these complicated and frequently heated topics through meaningful dialogue? As these discussions develop, what insights may be drawn from the experiences of states that have already implemented similar taxes?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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