A legal battle over California’s unique tax on the firearms industry shifted into high gear Thursday as advocacy groups asked a federal judge to strike down the law. The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners filed a motion for summary judgment in the case of Poway Weapons & Gear v. Gonzales, aiming to end the state’s 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition.
The law in question, Assembly Bill 28, took effect in July 2024. It requires licensed dealers and manufacturers to pay an 11% tax on the retail sale of all firearms, ammunition, and precursor parts.
While California officials have previously framed the tax as a way to fund violence prevention programs, the plaintiffs—including Poway Weapons & Gear and the Sacramento Gun Range—argue the surcharge is an unconstitutional barrier to a fundamental right.
In the motion filed this week, legal representatives for the SAF argued that the tax targets conduct protected by the Second Amendment.
READ: Zelenskyy: Russia Pulling Strategic Reserves To Ukraine As Kyiv Eyes Global Defense Deals
The filing asserts that constitutional rights cannot be singled out for special taxation, noting that the Second Amendment is not a “second-class right” subject to different rules than the rest of the Bill of Rights.
“Fundamental rights cannot be hidden by the state behind a paywall,” said Bill Sack, SAF Director of Legal Operations. Sack argued that the power to tax is essentially the power to make a product unavailable. “The present tax rate itself is immaterial,” he added. “The authority to tax a fundamental right at 11% is the authority to tax it 150%.”
The lawsuit highlights a growing tension between California’s aggressive legislative approach to firearm regulation and recent Supreme Court precedents that have expanded protections for gun owners. SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb suggested that the case has national implications, claiming California often serves as a testing ground for new restrictive policies.
“California taxes gas to dissuade people from driving and cigarettes to dissuade people from smoking,” Gottlieb said. “It’s no secret what the state doing here: taxing guns to dissuade people from exercising their rights.”
The motion for summary judgment asks the court to rule on the merits of the case without a full trial, arguing that the facts of the law clearly violate established constitutional protections.
If the judge rules in favor of the SAF, it could set a major precedent preventing other states from implementing similar excise taxes on the firearms industry.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
