S-1169-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Sponsored by James Risch (R-ID)
What it does
This bill would prohibit states and local governments from levying or collecting excise taxes on the sale of firearms, ammunition, or firearm parts and components by manufacturers or dealers, when those sales occur in or affect interstate or foreign commerce. It would not affect the existing federal Pittman-Robertson excise tax, which funds wildlife conservation programs.
Who benefits
Firearms and ammunition manufacturers and dealers, who would no longer be subject to state-level excise taxes on their sales. Consumers who may see lower retail prices if tax savings are passed along. Firearms industry trade associations. States and localities that do not currently impose such taxes would be unaffected. Wildlife conservation programs funded by the federal Pittman-Robertson tax are explicitly protected.
Who is hurt
States and localities that currently impose or plan to impose excise taxes on firearms and ammunition sales would lose that revenue. Examples include jurisdictions like Seattle, which enacted a firearms excise tax in 2015, and states such as California and Colorado that have enacted similar taxes. Public programs funded by those state and local tax revenues could face reduced funding. State and local governments broadly would lose a category of taxing authority they currently hold.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that state and local excise taxes on firearms and ammunition are a backdoor method of burdening the exercise of a constitutional right, effectively pricing law-abiding citizens out of Second Amendment protections. They contend that a patchwork of varying state and local taxes creates an uneven national market that disadvantages dealers and manufacturers in higher-tax jurisdictions, and that Congress has clear authority under the Commerce Clause to establish uniform rules for industries engaged in interstate commerce.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that states have broad, well-established authority to levy excise taxes on commercial goods sold within their borders, and that this bill would represent an unprecedented federal override of that sovereign taxing power. They contend that states like Colorado and California enacted these taxes through democratic processes specifically to fund violence prevention programs, and that Congress has no compelling reason to strip states of a revenue tool they apply to many other consumer products without constitutional controversy.