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

Authored by Daniel Lang via SHTFplan.com,

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.

Seattle Council Votes to Divest Billions From Wells Fargo Over DAPL Support

A committee of the Seattle City Council voted in favor of divesting $3 billion in city money from Wells Fargo over the bank’s role in construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

According to the Seattle Times, council members Kshama Sawant and Tim Burgess co-sponsored the bill, which was heard before the Affordable Housing, Neighborhoods and Finance Committee while #NoDAPL pipeline opposition activists gathered in a rally outside.

Public pressure over the controversial pipeline and a massive campaign to divest from banks contributing loans and funds to the project led to the preliminary hearing — and a full vote will be taken on Monday.

Energy Transfer Partners was forced to halt construction when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers halted approval of the necessary easement for the last remaining portion of the project in order to perform a full environmental impact assessment.

Viewed as a last ditch but sound victory by many, the construction stoppage was expected to last for some time as officials assessed the safety of Dakota Access undercutting the Missouri River’s Lake Oahe reservoir — the sole source of drinking water for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. An additional 18 million people are estimated to draw their drinking water supplies downstream from the pipeline’s planned crossing.

But that stop gap appears to have been removed altogether with the incoming administration of President Donald Trump, who signaled approval of both the Dakota Access and Keystone XL Pipelines.

Then, on Tuesday, North Dakota Senator John Hoeven released the following statement, proffering more bad news for supporters of the Standing Rock Sioux encamped near the slated path of the final segment of construction:

“Today, the Acting Secretary of the Army Robert Speer informed us that he has directed the Army Corps of Engineers to proceed with the easement needed to complete the Dakota Access Pipeline. This will enable the company to complete the project, which can and will be built with the necessary safety features to protect the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and others downstream.

“Building new energy infrastructure with the latest safeguards and technology is the safest and most environmentally sound way to move energy from where it is produced to where people need it.

“We are also working with the Corps, the Department of Justice, the Department of Interior and the Department of Homeland Security to secure additional federal law enforcement resources to support state and local law enforcement. On Sunday, 20 additional Bureau of Indian Affairs law enforcement officers arrived at Standing Rock to assist local authorities. Also, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Council has asked the protesters to leave the campsite on Corps land.

“This has been a difficult issue for all involved, particularly those who live and work in the area of the protest site, and we need to bring it to a peaceful resolution.”

In light of the unrelenting effort by politicians and Big Oil to ensure Dakota Access will be completed, divestment from the banks financing the project — speaking to corporations in the language of cash — has proven the only viable option for water protectors to find a voice.

The vote in favor of the bill for divestment from Wells Fargo — which also would require the city to consider social justice principles prior to approving major projects — was immediately hailed as a telling win for Indigenous rights and environmental concerns.

According to the Times, Wells Fargo manages more than $3 billion of Seattle’s operating budget, “including a bi-weekly payroll of $30 million for about 12,000 employees. The average daily balance in the city’s account with Wells Fargo is about $73 million.

“Wells Fargo, along with 16 other banks, is a lender to the Dakota Access Pipeline project. Wells Fargo has $120 million in a $2.5 billion credit agreement funding the pipeline project, according to Jessica Ong, with Wells Fargo corporate communications.”

Pressure from a disaffected public on major banks has worked in favor of pipeline opposition before, as DNB — Norway’s largest bank — pulled all its assets from the project in November after receiving a petition with over 120,000 signatures gathered by Greenpeace.

Permanently halting the Dakota Access Pipeline has begun to seem next to impossible — particularly under the oil and gas industry-friendly Trump administration.

Water protectors have been asked by the Standing Rock Sioux tribal leadership to leave the camps as spring flooding of the entire area is just around the corner. Native and non-native water protectors who have vowed to stay in the area have begun the long cleanup and relocation to higher ground.

At the time this article went to publication, rumors had begun swirling police and National Guard were poised and ready to evacuate the camps by force, though those had yet to be confirmed.

Standing Rock and the Dakota Access Pipeline project has sparked a national and international movement to oppose frivolous and unnecessary new fossil fuel projects — but time doesn’t seem to be cooperating.