California’s 11% Gun Tax Faces Major Legal Challenge — And Why It Matters Nationwide

California Governor Gavin Newsome (D) has ran on of the most Anti-2A states in the U.S.

California is once again at the center of a major Second Amendment battle—this time over something many gun owners have warned about for years. Taxing a constitutional right.

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), along with its partners, has filed a motion for summary judgment in Poway Weapons & Gear v. Gonzales, directly challenging California’s controversial 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition.

What the Law Does

The tax stems from California’s Assembly Bill 28, which went into effect in July 2024. Under the law an 11% excise tax is applied to, firearms, ammunition, and firearm precursor parts. This tax is imposed on retail sales through licensed dealers.

On its face, it may look like just another tax. In reality, it targets one thing specifically the exercise of a constitutional right. We just saw this issue come up on a federal level as it pertains to home distilling of alcohol in the Fifth Circuit.

The Lawsuit: Drawing a Line in the Sand

The plaintiffs—Poway Weapons & Gear and Sacramento Gun Range—are challenging the law with support from SAF and other pro-2A organizations. Their argument is straightforward. It is that the government cannot put a price tag on your rights. This seems like it should go without saying.

As SAF put it “Fundamental rights cannot be hidden behind a paywall”. That’s exactly what California is attempting to do. The state of California will do anything and everything it can to remove civilian firearm ownership from its state or at a minimum curtail it.

The Dangerous Precedent

This case isn’t about way more than a 11% excise tax. It’s about authority and whether government (both state and federal) have the right to put a cost on exercising a right. Because if government can tax a right at 11%, what is to stop them from raising to 25%? Or why not 50%?

This is what the entire Bill of Rights was meant for, a restraint on governmental power to restrict and not the granting of rights to the citizens. This principle is what matters. We all know that the power to tax is the power to destroy. When that power is applied to a constitutional right, it becomes a tool of suppression—not governance.

The Supreme Court Has Already Spoken

This isn’t uncharted legal territory. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the government cannot single out constitutional rights for special taxation:

• In Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, the Court struck down poll taxes, ruling that citizens cannot be forced to pay to exercise their right to vote.

• In Murdock v. Pennsylvania, the Court ruled that requiring a license tax to distribute religious materials violated the First Amendment.

• In Grosjean v. American Press Co., the Court rejected targeted taxes on newspapers, recognizing them as an attack on free speech.

This is what Justice Thomas was talking about when he wrote that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right. He was simply stating an already ruled upon fact that you cannot treat one right differently than another. In this case the Supreme Court has already stated that you cannot tax the exercise of a constitutional right.

What California Is Really Doing

Let us be honest about the intent, however with this particular law. This is California utilizing their taxing power to do the same thing they do with cigarettes to reduce smoking  and on fuel to reduce driving. This law is about taxing firearms to reduce gun ownership. This isn’t about revenue. It’s about deterrence through financial pressure. The difference here is neither one of those things are a right enshrined in the constitution.

Why This Case Matters for the Entire Country

The danger here is ff California succeeds, other anti-gun states will follow—fast. Here in Minnesota we are witnessing state lawmakers copy what California has done in the past when it comes to guns. We are seeing copycat legislation across blue states.

Anti-2A politicians are increasing use of “creative” legal strategies to bypass the Constitution. If this tax stands, it opens the door to nationwide adoption of similar taxes. This creates a de facto backdoor gun control through economics and ultimately achieving the intent of gradual erosion of the right to keep and bear arms. We have seen this thought implemented with the National Firearms Act (NFA).

Gun control like this is what we here at 2 If By Sea Tactical have been fighting against for a long time. We understand that gun control isn’t always about bans—it’s about barriers. We are increasingly seeing politicians adding barriers to get around the restrictions on their power by the bill of rights. We unfortunately, are seeing several courts reaffirm those work arounds.

Financial barriers have shown to be some of the most effective work arounds. Because they don’t outright prohibit your rights—they just make them harder to exercise. However, the result is the same as a ban. It just takes longer over time for the effect to be felt. This case is about stopping that trend before it spreads. The reality is if government can tax a right, it can regulate it out of existence.

Here at 2 If By Sea Tactical we strive to bring you the best experience in the firearms world.  As we continue to grow the media arm of 2 If By Sea, make sure you keep tuning in to our Youtube and Rumble channels and right here at “The Patriot’s Almanac” to stay informed on the latest happenings in the firearm world! But we are not lawyers, so this isn't legal guidance. We are proud to be Southern Minnesota source for all things 2A.

Stay sharp, stay informed, and stay ready.