The Last Frontier For Gun Control: Washington Court Rules In Favor Of Seattle's "Gun Violence" Tax

Authored by Daniel Lang via,

Two years ago, the president of the Seattle City Council offered a rather ludicrous proposition. He wanted Seattle to place a new tax on the sale of firearms and ammunition within the city limits. Ammo would cost an additional 2-5 cents per round, and a firearm would cost an extra $25.

But what was even more absurd than the tax itself, is what the money would be going toward. The tax was supposed to pay for gun violence prevention programs and research.

The way City Council President Tim Burgess explained it, this “gun violence” tax would help offset the costs the city pays to treat gunshot victims. Essentially, it was a tax levied on responsible law abiding gun owners, to pay for the actions of violent criminals.

Despite how utterly stupid that sounds, the proposal passed.

However, it didn’t have the desired effect. To the surprise of no one who actually understands the relationship between private firearm ownership and crime rates, the violent crime rate in Seattle has dramatically increased since the tax was put in place. It also brought in only a small fraction of the revenue that the city council was expecting. In short, the tax was a total failure.

So it’s no surprise that the tax has faced a lawsuit over the fact that Washington has a law that prevents municipalities from regulating firearms. Unfortunately, the Washington Supreme Court recently ruled against the lawsuit on the grounds that taxes aren’t the same as regulations, and cities are well within their right to levy sales taxes.

Regardless of whether the court’s decision was right or wrong, it certainly sets a dangerous precedent. As an article from Breitbart recently pointed out, it opens a new avenue for gun control activists to hamper the Second Amendment.

On August 10 Washington’s high court sided with the City of Seattle, which adopted a “gun violence tax” in a strategy to slither around the state preemption law that placed exclusive authority for regulating firearms in the hands of the State Legislature. And this new scheme could be coming to any city that has an anti-gun rights Mayor and City Council.


In Seattle’s case, the tax is $25 on the sale of each firearm, plus two to five cents for each round of ammunition sold. This threat takes on even more sinister dimensions when one considers the potential for cities to simply up the fee. Seattle started with $25 per gun, but what if they want to raise that to $100, $500 or even $1,000?


It opens the door wide to making gun ownership prohibitively expensive for average citizens. Essentially, Washington’s Supreme Court just handed the gun prohibition lobby and its allies in government a new strategy: If they can’t ban or regulate gun ownership out of existence, they will simply tax it into oblivion.

I think deep down we all know that this is probably the real intent behind Seattle’s gun tax.

The left has tried many times to regulate privately owned firearms out of existence, and in America they have failed far more often than they have succeeded. They’re always looking for a new underhanded approach to gun control and this is it. Firearm and ammunition taxes aren’t about reducing gun violence and saving lives. They’re about exploiting a legal loophole to make firearms too expensive for ordinary people to own.


SumTing Wong Lurk Skywatcher Sat, 08/19/2017 - 19:46 Permalink

For now it just means to buy outside of Seattle. And to make sure you have what you need before these bastards go too far. I've loved the lower prices on firearms and ammo since Trump was elected. I've also liked that some people overbought in fears that Hillary would be elected and now need rent money. I've been happy to help them out when they are selling below wholesale prices. You should be as good of a neighbor when they name their price.

In reply to by Lurk Skywatcher

Manthong SumTing Wong Sat, 08/19/2017 - 19:56 Permalink

  I do not know if this has anything to do with stupid idiot liberal politicians anywhere…… … but a little ballistics study and practice about how to drop a round at 500 yards or so is good to know. ….. and as wonderful as an AK is for a few hundred yards dependable crazy violence… do not expect it to help hone skills in long distance marksmanship. The bluest skies you’ve ever seen…. Not Seattle  

In reply to by SumTing Wong

all-priced-in vato poco Sun, 08/20/2017 - 12:14 Permalink

The problem with that is - you can't buy a handgun (from a gun shop) if you are not a resident of the state - unless you have it sent to a FFL of your home state. So if you are a resident of Washington you can't just drive across the state line and legally buy a handgun. Some states allow long guns to be purchased by out of state people - I am not sure about Idaho.     

In reply to by vato poco

AGuy Kidbuck Sun, 08/20/2017 - 12:47 Permalink

"very Marine recruit for more than 40 years has consistently hit a man size target from 500 yards with the AK"

US solders do not train with AKs. AK-47's were never designed for long distance. They were designed to be cheap and mass produced. AK47s have too much barrel flex to shoot accurately at long distances:

AK47s Soviet/China Military tactics is to use overwhelming numbers to achieve objectives. The Soviet Union & China consider Solders expendable, where as the west focused on fewer, but well trained and equipped soldiers. The American Public won't stand for massive losses that are considerable very acceptable in Communist/Totalitarian nations.

In reply to by Kidbuck

Tallest Skil chubbar Sat, 08/19/2017 - 19:47 Permalink

This is why I keep saying that libertarianism is leftism. Libertarians have never fought for racists or true conservatives. I never asked for an endorsement, nor, for that matter, do I desire one. I fight to be heard. Libertarians offer platforms only to other libertarians and progressives with whom they sympathize. Any platform they offer to those who are conservative, traditionalist, or fascists is grudging at best–tacitly condemned and stifled at worst. They offer endorsement to progressives, whether demanded by them or not. Libertarians as a group have already chosen their side–they merely pretend not to have by promoting false equivalencies and pretending to stand for the rights of everyone. “Everyone’s right to express themselves is equal,” they say. But just like the progressives with whom they sympathize, some are more equal than others. They have favored sons. That is hardly a sin, but when their entire stance is the refusal to favor any son, it is a hypocrisy. And they refuse to acknowledge or admit it.
Libertarians say this is not a particular problem. But it is. It is a very deep and concerning problem, because we fight enemies who will use our freedoms and rights as weapons against us. Agitators will come to meetings and shout us down, crying “free speech!” when they are ejected. Our enemies will form mobs to cause havoc and destruction when we assemble to discuss issues or share information, and cry “freedom to assemble!” when they are dispersed. Our opponents will slander us in the press with blatant distortions and outright lies, and when challenged or called out will hide behind freedom of the press. Mosley encountered this very problem when he attempted to stop Churchill from starting the Second World War. Trump is encountering this problem now. Hitler ran into it before both of them. The reason the Brownshirts, the Blackshirts, and now the Lion’s Guard were formed is that Communist agitators are masters of using the rights and freedoms of a nation to get their way. They will cut you with a knife, proclaim it their right to do so, and cry foul when you push them away or strike back with your fist.
This is why libertarian hypocrisy cannot be borne. Communists, Socialists, Bolsheviks, and Jews will forever and always use our freedoms and rights against us as poisoned daggers. The only way to stop it is employ similar, if tempered, tactics. Even elder libertarians admit this. They themselves claim that a true libertarian society can only come about if all communists, hippies, marxist sympathizers, and welfare leeches are expelled and cast away. But to the matter of how this is to be done, they speak not one word. They see the problem, but much like the handwringing progressives of Europe who see the invaders as a problem but say it is impossible to deport them back they offer not even the faintest hint of a solution. No. There is a solution. There is a solution to getting rid of cultural marxism, just as there is a solution to sending the refugees back. But like the progressives with whom they sympathize, libertarians pretend that what is standing plain before them is not there. If they do see it, they deny it and refuse it, saying there must be some other way–that the situation can be solved without violence or compromising their libertarian mores and morality.
They are wrong. This will never be solved peacefully. The enemy will not permit it. They are dyed in the wool fanatics that believe they are saving the world from itself and will die for what they believe, running the streets red with blood. If you are not prepared to do the same even to stop them, let alone to begin reversing the tide of what they have done, it is tantamount to conceding defeat right now. There are no lengths to which a rabid dog will not go to bite a man. It must be put down.
What the European talking heads refuse to admit is that the invaders could easily be rebuffed. They came here under their own power. They can leave under their own power. If Europeans started executing every Muslim they see, the problem would sort itself out in under a year. They would self-deport back to where they came from if they were made to fear what lies before them more than what they fled. The same solution exists for cultural marxism and all the various flavors of socialist, communist, quisling, and opportunists that push it. To fight them legitimately within the confines of the rules is to propose the raising up of an entire nation within a nation–to have a second America preaching the truth to counter their lies, a second media machine, a second governmental process, a second source of mass information. This is categorically impossible to accomplish, and even if it weren’t, the powers that be would not permit it. The leviathan of the state would not stand idly by while you erect a behemoth in front of it to fight it. Libertarians admit that the threat must be removed but choose to ignore that it will never go willingly and will fight to the death to fulfill its purpose and nature. Force is the one and only solution. But to do so is foul, disgusting, altogether too barbaric, downright fascist, and, worst of all, that most wicked of libertarian sins–authoritarian. So the libertarian will never do so. He will plead the Fifth on the matter even as they are lowering him into his own grave.
Additionally, even if they had fought for my right to free speech, that means next to nothing. Am I to overlook a man stabbing me in the back with a knife because he once passed me the salt or held open a door for me? The forces arrayed against us will use the rights we value to kill us and everything we hold dear. You have seen it already in the Chicago riots. Under the guise of “freedoms” like the right to assembly and the right to free speech, the actual rights of free speech and freedom to assemble will be unmade through naked terrorism disguised as the will of the people.
The only positions libertarians may ever take are to either stand completely aside and permit those who are willing to do what must be done, to join us and fight back, or to stand by their principles as hypocritically as they do now, but show them towards us instead. These are the only viable positions for them to take. The libertarian masses choose none of these. Thus, they are part of the problem, not the solution. And these are just the issues with libertarianism that appear when confronted with the issue of cultural marxism. They go far deeper than this. Libertarianism is the promotion of the individual over all other concerns, and as such libertarianism is the suicide of culture and nation both. Libertarianism will not enforce the changes that are necessary to fix this country, or indeed any country, because any such concentration of power would be condemned for its own sake merely for existing. They promote free trade, which breaks the back of any economy that utilizes it–and always will–for free trade is only viable if all trade partners engage in it, and they never will. Thus, it is a policy of being taken advantage of and will always ultimately lead to jobs and labor being outsourced to foreign bidders and wealth flowing out of the nation and into the pockets of international corporate interests.
They claim that progressiveness is only a problem when it is pushed on people by their government. What they fail to realize is that the government will always be biased towards a political ideology, and not only that, it should be. McCarthy’s bias for American traditionalism and against communism is what protected America from it, and but for the Grace of God that he could have gotten all of them instead of merely most, we would not have many of the problems that we do today.
The government will always force upon the people the ideals of those who hold office. Thus, the government will always be vulnerable to subversion by intrusive and malicious alien elements. It is not a self-correcting system. It must be corrected. Socialism did not form in a vacuum. Just like how women have been granted equal rights many times before in the history of human civilization, it is a symptom of a greater scourge of the entropy of civilization and the decay of society. Sexual liberation, female rights, and socialist policies will always be the harbingers of the end for a society. To try and embrace the poison like libertarians do–to insist that the volatile and poisonous progressive culture can be preserved and is even somehow inherently good–betrays their naked ignorance and naïveté on the subject. It is progressive culture that is causing these problems. It is liberalism that has brought us to this point, it is egalitarianism that has allowed this to come to pass, and it is individualism that permitted this to foment. To preserve modern culture but insist on conservative law and fiscal policy is to replace a rotten fruit with a fresh one, but scoop out the festering heart of the rotten and transplant it into the healthy. It is painting over rust instead of scrubbing it out. The culture dictates everything, because it controls the wills and wants of the people. This is why cultural marxism has been so effective. A nation is held aloft from the very bottommost rung, and that bottom rung is the family–the smallest microcosm of civilization. A family is a group of related people who share space, genetics, and ideas. A group of families is a locality, a group of localities is a city or region, a group of cities or regions is a state, and a state either stands on its own. or itself comprises a group of states that form a nation. Thus, all of civilization is supported by the family.
This is why the single most successful communist psyop ever played was the feminist one–i.e. the one that attacked the family unit itself. This is no accident. This was by design. This was a poison dart crafted specifically to bring the Western world to its knees and ultimately destroy it, and it is a poison that has outlived the assassins that cast it and will be the death of us yet if we cannot stop it. To refuse to take a stand against the degeneration of society and culture–to try to “stay above it”–is to be complicit with its blatant and overt destruction. The man who stands by and watches as the gates are lifted and the barbarians are let loose upon the city is complicit in the act of the gateraiser.
Libertarians would stuff their ears with cotton and gibber of cycles of left and right, completely ignoring that even the right wing of today would be viewed as buffoons, imbeciles, and utter madmen by the conservatives of as little as a hundred years ago. A libertarian is someone who sees the spinning wheel of the left vs. right dichotomy and says, “This is a natural cycle of the rotation of ideas,” blind to the cart to which the wheel is attached which is rolling down a hill and off of a cliff. They say to a man who would halt the spinning wheel, “You have no right to do that; the spinning of the wheel is natural,” and to a man who would dare to reverse it, they would hurl their most dire insults, of “authoritarian” and “fascist,” never minding that the progressive ideology is the most authoritarian of all. They cite the Founding Fathers of America as their inspiration. The Founding Fathers were unashamedly fascist. They were fascist before such a term even existed. They were, it could be argued, the original pioneers of the concept in modern times, as they espoused the erasing of prior identity to be subsumed into the newly created joint effort and identity of all. The ideals they represented were the ideals Classical Rome, which they had long studied and admired. They opposed only the coronation of an Emperor out of the whole of Roman works, and only then on principle alone. Much like Thomas Aquinas, not one of them considered Africans “human” when they spoke of “universal human rights.” They never imagined that Europeans and Anglo-Saxons would ever become a minority in their own country. They never believed Christendom would be dismantled with the very rules they put in place to protect it. They fled Britain precisely to escape the tyranny of a centralized private bank, and they felt that such a thing as a love of ones own people and a desire to protect and further the cause of your nation and your blood was so absurdly obvious and so deeply fundamental that it did not even deserve a comment. When they spoke of the brotherhood of man, it was of embracing a man from a city over as a friend, not inviting into your home a swarthy savage from an alien continent.
And if they did ever suspect that such things might take place, they counted on the intelligence and perception of the Americans alive in such times to strike back against it. Libertarians refuse to do so. They fail the Founding Fathers in ways that even an out-and-out, dyed in the wool Nazi does not. At least the Nazi would stand for America, the nation, first, and themselves second. At least they would be willing to fight back. At least they would be intelligent enough to understand that one should not be bound by any law meant for civilized society when uncivil men subvert such rules into daggers and razors to be brandished with malicious intent.
To hide behind feigned neutrality to avoid having to make a stand as any real patriot–as any real man–should, makes you more detestable than the most blatant traitor. You are worse than a traitor. You are a shamer of the righteous, finger wagging the resistance, tut tutting those with the heart to fight back, and talking down as though to a fool the assemblage of patriots who refuse to see a nation subverted and degenerated before their eyes. Naked treachery is preferable to the smug and lukewarm condescension of the just. Even Satan himself stood for something in the face of the Almighty God. Libertarians cannot even manage that.

In before comments that do nothing but whine about how long this is. SUCK IT UP AND READ IT OR SHUT UP AND GET OUT OF THE WAY OF ACTUAL AMERICANS, THEN. If you're too fucking desensitized to the concept of reading by your technological ADD perversions, then you'll burn with the rest of the fodder when the war comes anyway. But if you have the SLIGHTEST sense left in you, you can take the time to sit down and read this to comprehend WHY it says what it says. This isn't remotely long, but it can change your comprehension of society.

In reply to by chubbar

vato poco Tallest Skil Sat, 08/19/2017 - 21:50 Permalink

and you're a pompous, droning, vainglorious ass, my puffed-up popinjay. who confuses wordiness with wisdom. pro tip: to give anyone fool enough to read your endless fulminating screeds a rest, consider breaking up your self-important magnum opii (or do you think of them as 'manifestos'? enquiring minds want to know) into paragraphs. this is done by a) taking a breath and b) hit the "enter" key

In reply to by Tallest Skil

Tallest Skil vato poco Sun, 08/20/2017 - 12:29 Permalink

>>and you're a pompous, droning, vainglorious ass, my puffed-up popinjay. who confuses wordiness with wisdom.Holy shit, illiterate, get off your fucking high horse.>>...your endless fulminating screeds Fun fact: copying words out of a thesaurus doesn't make you smart.>>consider... ...paragraphs.Notice that they're already there, my blind "poppinjay". ZH's formatting has broken line breaks.>>this is done by a) taking a breath and b) hit the "enter" keyDo you have anything to actually add other than a false sense of smug superiority, or can we just assume that you admit nothing that I said is wrong? Fuck off, kiddo.

In reply to by vato poco

vato poco Tallest Skil Sun, 08/20/2017 - 16:38 Permalink

good God, the buffoon who fires off 8000-word idiot tirades against, apparently, libertarians & the founding fathers & anyone who might dare mock or even disagree with his own pedantic self-importance is saying **I** have a false sense of smug superiority?!?you're a woman, right? about 40, hitting the wall, men won't look at you and your cats are beginning to bore you so you thought you'd give political thought a try?? starting with a good old-fashioned girly rant?let's find out. a woman would never, ever, ever let someone she hates have the last word. let's watch as she struggles against her natural inclinations to screech her righteous complaints to an unfeeling world!

In reply to by Tallest Skil

Tallest Skil vato poco Sun, 08/20/2017 - 19:31 Permalink

>>against the founding fathers

You'll want to actually read the post before you comment on it. You look like a fucking idiot otherwise.

>>might dare mock or disagree with pedantic self-importance

1. You replied to the content of the post in no way, shape, or form.
2. Nowhere would you get this idea from anything that was posted.
3. You are projecting your own inadequacies onto others.

You're a useless, pathetic coward who can't even self-examine his own ideology. "I'm a libertarian because I am" is good enough for you to define yourself politically, and you're PISSING YOUR PANTS IN FEAR now that someone had the AUDACITY to ask you to self-evaluate (hence your delusions about "self importance" above. You're beneath contempt and incapable of holding an adult conversation.

In reply to by vato poco

vato poco Tallest Skil Sun, 08/20/2017 - 20:56 Permalink

tall ugly cat lady, 20 Aug 12:28 PM, responding to someone (not me) gently pointing out to her that ranting ain't really the way to go here: "You can go straight to hell. You're a traitor to America."you're not just a bitch, tall ugly cat lady, you're a strident, laughably self-important, *hateful* bitch.good luck with that. I know (i KNOW) you'll pop in later to get the last word, because that's what pathetic angry women DO. especially post-Wall women like yourself.  but it will be to no avail: I'm done with you. life's too short to deal with crazy bitches

In reply to by Tallest Skil

vato poco Tallest Skil Mon, 08/21/2017 - 03:38 Permalink

LOL. quoting you word-for-word = "harrassment"??then of course the appeal to authority (reported for .. ) and the proclamation of Victory. yup: crazy cat lady. interesting, isn't it, how you're slinking back here, to a long-forgotten thread, to get the last word in. just like I said you would. chances of you waiting a week or so, then doing it again ("MUST get last word!!") = >75%

In reply to by Tallest Skil

Tallest Skil Seeing Red Sun, 08/20/2017 - 19:33 Permalink

I realize that critical thinking is in short supply these days, but the implication is quite clear from the context of the discussion. Libertarians are painted as being conservative despite holding not just liberal beliefs, but progressive beliefs. True conservatives do not hold the beliefs of libertarians–as they are liberals–and thus are those who hold what beliefs are left when removing both liberal and libertarian beliefs. Libertarians are individualistic. Libertarians care nothing for race. Libertarians care nothing for nations. Libertarians care nothing for fiscal responsibility. What might you think true conservatives are, then?

In reply to by Seeing Red

Mr T Tallest Skil Sat, 08/19/2017 - 22:24 Permalink

Sir that is a rant not an argument.  You made so many statements as fact when they are clearly your Opinions.I really don't want to argue, why can't you understand over analyzing basic inalienable rights is an exercise in futility.Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.We have a bill of rights for those who can read that should help in the above endeavor.Start there.If you interfere with those simple Ideals and that Fundamental Ideology conflict will arise.Always. iI am sorry if I misunderstood you

In reply to by Tallest Skil

Tallest Skil Mr T Sun, 08/20/2017 - 12:29 Permalink

>>Sir that is a rant not an argument.Your pedantry doesn't change that you have no response to it.>>You made so many statements as fact when they are clearly your Opinions.So prove them wrong.>>why can't you understand over analyzing basic inalienable rights is an exercise in futility.Because there is no overanalysis here, because that's not the topic being discussed, and because holy fucking shit does EVERYONE on this fucking site have ADD?>>Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Which libertarians don't support, as proven by their actions.>>We have a bill of rights for those who can read that should help in the above endeavor.Great argument. Way to spit out platitudes that the left ignores and that libertarians refuse to fight for. I'm sure that single sentence will totally articulate the intricacies of your point in a way that rallies people to your cause–and not just has them say "aw, yeah, rights and shit, yeah, dude, i totally support rights and shit lol" and then does aboslutely nothing about it... right?>>If you interfere with those simple Ideals and that Fundamental Ideology conflict will arise.Hence why libertarianism–which interferes with them–causes conflict and supports the leftist cause.

In reply to by Mr T

Mr T Tallest Skil Sun, 08/20/2017 - 15:10 Permalink

Sir, I am to prove your opinion is wrong? Well, I believe you have a right to your opinion and you expressed it at length. I was a tad more brief but it is my opinion. Also I cannot prove a negative, you make many claims about libertarians your very bitter, what do you support? Read your screed again and tell me one thing positive you support. ADD? I do not know exactly what skil you possess, seems very little except producing a big steaming pustulating,  quivering pile of words

In reply to by Tallest Skil

Tallest Skil Mr T Sun, 08/20/2017 - 19:36 Permalink

>>opinion is wrong

Truth is not a matter of opinion. If truth is wrong, prove it.

>>tell me one thing positive you support

Ethnonationalism. Fiscal conservatism. Usury punished by death. Isolationism. Economic foreign protectionism with domestic laissez-faire policies. The destruction of autonomous culture. The restoration of the family as the smallest unit of society.

How is this unclear unless you have no idea what conservatism or traditionalism actually are?

In reply to by Mr T