California has enacted two new laws that will impose strict restrictions on the carrying of firearms in public places and increase taxes on guns and ammunition. These laws, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on Tuesday, aim to push the boundaries of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent interpretation of the Second Amendment.

The federal government currently imposes taxes of 10% or 11% on the sale of guns and ammunition, depending on the specific type of firearm. However, in California, a new law signed by Governor Newsom introduces an additional 11% tax. This makes California the lone state to have an independent tax on guns and ammunition, as stated by the gun control advocacy organization, Brady.

The funds will be allocated towards enhancing security measures in public schools and implementing a range of initiatives aimed at preventing gun violence, particularly among youth involved in gangs. These endeavors will be financed by the long-established federal tax, which has been in operation for over a century, contributing to both wildlife conservation and hunter education programs.

On Tuesday, Governor Newsom signed multiple gun control measures, considering them to be necessary laws. However, he recognized that these laws could potentially face legal challenges in light of the recent standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court in interpreting gun laws across the country. As an example, a federal judge recently invalidated a California law that prohibited guns with detachable magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. This is one of three significant ongoing cases that challenge the gun restrictions in California.

“It may mean nothing if the federal courts are throwing them out,” Newsom said. “We feel very strongly that these bills meet the (new standard), and they were drafted accordingly. But I’m not naive about the recklessness of the federal courts and the ideological agenda.”

The recent enactment of a law signed by Governor Newsom in California, which restricts individuals from carrying firearms in most public areas, has already prompted the California Rifle and Pistol Association to file a lawsuit seeking to prevent its implementation. This law represents a comprehensive revision of the state’s regulations regarding concealed carry permits, taking into consideration the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

The mentioned regulation prohibits individuals from possessing firearms in 26 designated locations. These include public parks, playgrounds, demonstrations and gatherings, amusement parks, churches, banks, zoos, and any privately owned commercial establishments open to the public, unless there is signage indicating that firearms are permitted.

Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, argued that the implementation of these laws would not enhance our safety. According to Michel, the laws are deemed unconstitutional and are seen as a retaliatory and vindictive reaction to the Supreme Court’s recognition of an individual’s right to own a firearm for sport or self-defense. Michel firmly believes that these laws will face legal challenges and, once enacted, there will be a countdown towards their inevitable dismissal by the judicial system.

Governor Newsom, who is known for his liberal ideologies, has a remarkable stance when it comes to taxation. Despite his opposition to general tax increases, he makes an exception for a specific tax related to combating gun violence. Newsom justifies this exception by highlighting the significant costs borne by taxpayers due to the health consequences and involvement of the criminal justice system resulting from gun violence. It is worth noting that Newsom’s position on taxes is not easily predictable, as he evaluates each issue independently.

“I think this is a pretty modest investment in prevention and reducing those costs, ultimately…The carnage, it’s too much. We can’t normalize it, we can’t accept it. This is a small price to pay.”

Governor Newsom, California

According to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, California is positioned 43rd out of 50 states in terms of gun death rates, with 9 deaths per 100,000 individuals. Despite these relatively low rates, there has been a recent surge in violent crimes within the state. The California Department of Justice reports a 6.1% increase in the violent crime rate for the year 2022.

No other state imposes a specific tax exclusively on firearms and ammunition, although certain local governments do have such taxes. Tennessee previously had a tax of 10 cents on shotgun shells, but this tax was eliminated in 2019. In Pennsylvania, a $3 surcharge is collected on firearm sales to cover the costs of conducting background checks. In California, fees associated with firearm purchases amount to over $37, primarily allocated towards funding background checks.

“Taxing firearm sales to fund violence intervention programs is essential to interrupting the cycle of violence and stopping gun violence before it begins, and we encourage other states to follow suit,”

Kris Brown, President of Brady.

The tax contains certain exemptions. It does not encompass police officers, nor does it encompass businesses with sales of less than $5,000 within a three-month time-frame. According to state officials’ estimations, it is projected to yield approximately $159 million per year.

According to the law, the initial $75 million is allocated to the California Violence Intervention and Prevention Grant Program, which primarily supports initiatives aimed at addressing youth involvement in gangs. These initiatives encompass various projects such as sports programs, life coaching, and tattoo removal services.

The following $50 million allocation will be directed towards enhancing security measures in public schools through the State Department of Education. These measures encompass various aspects, including physical security enhancements, safety evaluations, after-school programs targeting at-risk students, as well as provisions for mental and behavioral health services for both students and school personnel.

That provided solace to Senator Catherine Blakespear, a San Diego Democrat, who recounted receiving a text notification from her ninth-grade child while present on the Senate floor earlier this year. The message conveyed that the child was taking shelter under their desk. Thankfully, no injuries were reported.

“It is acknowledged that numerous families are currently experiencing the same situation, making the hardening of our schools a prevailing concern. The necessity of implementing such measures to safeguard individuals is an undesirable reality that we strive to avoid both at the state and national level.”