... Harborview Medical Center treated 253 victims of gun violence in 2014 at a cost of $17 million, $12 million of that borne by the taxpayers ... so it is right to double tax the honest citizens who own guns to help defray those costs ...
... Harborview Medical Center treated 253 victims of gun violence in 2014 at a cost of $17 million, $12 million of that borne by the taxpayers ... so it is right to double tax the honest citizens who own guns to help defray those costs ...
Always a new tax. It shouldn’t be difficult to get this struck down.
Isn’t Obamacare supposed to pay everybody’s medical bills? And what’s to stop people from driving out of Seattle to buy guns & ammo? And what about the internet? Hmmm?
A court challenge will use the state’s gun law preemption provision to end this liberal nonsense.
Yea, taxing the law abiding will reduce crime.
How about a $25 tax on every firearm sold? Add to that a 5 cent tax on every cartridge
I see gun shops going out of business in Seattle.
I guess it never dawned on these greedy liberal dildoes to maybe tax only those who use guns to commit “violence”.
More infringement on our rights.
How about a $25 add’l tax on every crime committed by a criminal of robbery, rape, assault, theft, burglary, car theft, etc?
That makes more sense.
These people are nuts.
Is it legal to tax a Constitutional Right?
This is a straightforward violation of human rights.
I’m sure the criminals who steal guns will march right down and pay it.
That’s nuts. Gun dealers inside the city limits will lose tons of business.
I think the 5 gun dealers left in Seattle will just move outside the city. The city will get $0.
As if it would be so difficult to go outside the city limits to buy guns and ammunition.
With Obamacare why is the city of Seattle paying anything for the care of gunshot victims? Sales of guns and ammo should go up in surrounding communities.
hopefully the numbnuts do not put a police or any govt exemption on this.
They only screwed Seattle retailers.
Nobody will pay the grift.
It would make much more sense to tax those with no firearms and ammunition to help defray the cost of their protection.
This plan wouldn’t work very well in California. There aren’t that many gun owners here.
How many of those who use guns for violent and criminal acts will pay these fees ?