ShareThis Page
The Seattle gun verdict: Eroding the law |

The Seattle gun verdict: Eroding the law

AP photo

The importance of electing judges who uphold and defend the law is underscored by the state of Washington’s Supreme Court, which in an 8-1 ruling trampled state law to embrace Seattle’s purely partisan “gun violence tax.”

The 2015 tax law allows Seattle to impose levies of $25 per firearm plus 2-5 cents per round of ammunition, both of which pose disincentives to — if not the tacit regulation of — gun purchases in the city.

And it’s hardly surprising that the tax fell far short of its first-year revenue projection. Commerce suffered because the new taxes drove gun customers from the city, thereby directly conflicting with a 1983 state law.

Under that Washington law, guns fall under the purview of the state, not its cities: “The state … fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulations within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge and transportation of firearms or any element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition.”

Apparently that wasn’t clear enough for the state’s high-court justices except for one. In her dissent, Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud wrote that the pre-existing law’s “plain language demonstrates clear legislative intent to preempt local ‘laws and ordinances’ that ‘relate to firearms’ as broadly as possible.”

Seattle’s onerous gun tax clearly conflicts with Washington state’s gun law. It also erodes citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.