General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSeattle court upholds new gun violence tax
A small step but a good one. An appeal is planned, of course.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/judge-upholds-seattle-gun-violence-tax-dismisses-nra-35915715
A judge upheld Seattle's so-called gun violence tax Tuesday, rejecting a challenge from the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups.
King County Superior Court Judge Palmer Robinson dismissed arguments that Seattle's tax, adopted last summer, exceeded the city's authority under state law.
The measure one of only a couple of its kind in the nation adds $25 to the price of each firearm sold in the city, plus 2 or 5 cents per round of ammunition, depending on the type. Officials expect it to raise up to $500,000 a year to help offset the costs of gun violence. The measure is set to take effect next month.
"The NRA and its allies always oppose these commonsense steps to shine light on the gun violence epidemic," said City Council President Tim Burgess, who sponsored the law. "Judge Robinson saw through the NRA's distorted efforts to put gun industry profits ahead of public safety."
SNIP
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)lanlady
(7,134 posts)I hope it sweeps the nation. The revenue is a drop in the bucket compared to the actual costs of gun violence but it's a start.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,350 posts)Since the tax seems modeled after a similar Cook Co, IL, measure.
"The revenue would be used for gun safety research and gun violence prevention programs." These programs will certainly help the victims of violence. Or, if not, they will help the people who conduct the studies and programs.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Has one of the highest murder rates in the US. Chicago is the deadliest city. So how exactly is this supposed to help Seattle become "safe" like Chicago, which is in no way "safe" at all?
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)MH1
(17,600 posts)I know you are being sarcastic so I'll try to address your real point.
Sometimes when the powers that be don't allow for safety to be improved, you might as well do something to offset the cost of the consequences. That is all a tax like this could possibly be expected to achieve. I would expect that the tax will drive some sales out of the jurisdiction, but those items will still wander back into the jurisdiction. However over time people get used to the tax, and in any case some people will pay the tax rather than undergo the inconvenience of avoiding it. So, some revenue will be raised. I doubt anyone thinks the tax would make a significant impact on the concentration of weapons floating around. But since that concentration of weapons is linked to costs that affect the whole community, it's a fair way to raise revenue to offset the costs.
hack89
(39,171 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Meanhile, will the politicians actually give a detailed accounting as to where the money goes? No doubt they will funnel it to some pet cause that has nothing to do with the tax.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)their firearms and ammo?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)and hopefully other nearby cities -- and the state -- will follow suit.
MH1
(17,600 posts)For most of us, traveling is not free.
So figure the cost of the tax vs. the mileage cost to go elsewhere.
And time isn't free. (Again, for most of us.)
Even if a rational cost calculation (including mileage and time) says it's better to go elsewhere, some people just wouldn't be bothered.
As I posted above, no thinking person would really expect this tax alone to significantly reduce volume of weapons in this area. Just provides revenue to offset the costs to the community.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)It is about putting pressure on FFLs to close their stores in Seattle.
MH1
(17,600 posts)If I'm still selling product and making a profit, what do I care if there's a tax?