Printable View
I know every online retailer is doing things differently, but can anyone confirm if eBay is automatically tacking on the CO 6.5% excise tax to firearm precursor parts? Since I'm on the topic, how about Gun Broker (to include guns and ammo) or Amazon?
Ed Brown did not charge it when I bought a hammer and sear in November.
Wilson Combat did not charge it on a trigger and sear spring in December.
Midsouth did charge it on a Timney trigger assembly in August.
I spoke to a few E-Commerce companies that didn't even know about the Colorado excise tax.
I had others who thought it only applied the company was based in Colorado.
Some outfits didn't worry about it because they did so little sales in Colorado.
Then there were other firms who quit selling into Colorado some years ago BECAUSE of the mess about "home rule" sales taxes.
Richard
Happy New Year!
maybe? since we're talking about taxes.
Regarding GB and Ebay: I THINK both do.
What I mean is while they dont specifically itemize it in the taxes you pay, the taxes is alot (over 6.5), so it appears they do.
They DO specifically collect the 0.28 delivery fee though. It's a separate tax listed.
And like Eddie, Midsouth does. They "hide it" too, what I mean is I ordered some powder and the fees were ALOT so I asked and they explained it was due to the 6.5 nonsense.
Hope that lawsuit eventually wins!
The tax only applies if the selling entity does more than $20,000 of business in the state annually.
How vendors approach the tax is up to them. Some abide by it, some don’t, some are ignorant of it and some just ceased doing business in the state.Quote:
Beginning on April 1, 2025, the act requires every vendor to file a return and remit the excise tax due on the vendor's net taxable sales of firearms, firearm precursor parts, or ammunition in the state on a monthly basis, except that a vendor making $20,000 or less in such retail sales in a previous calendar year is not required to pay the tax unless and until the vendor's retails sales exceed $20,000 in a calendar year.
Many vendors simply refuse to do business in the state. They are not expending the resources to comply with the administrative bullshit.Quote:
The act also imposes a registration requirement, making it unlawful for any person to engage in the business of a firearms dealer, firearms manufacturer, or an ammunition vendor in the state without first having registered as a vendor with the executive director of the department of revenue (executive director) on a form prescribed by the executive director. Making sales of firearms, firearm precursor parts, or ammunition without first registering with the executive director is a petty criminal offense and may also be punished by civil penalties. A vendor must file a separate registration for each of the vendor's places of business in the state, and all registrations must be renewed every 2 years. The executive director may revoke a vendor's registration, after reasonable notice and a hearing, upon a finding that the vendor has violated a provision of the excise tax statutory scheme, including by failing to file a return, remit the proper amount of tax, or preserve or allow inspection of specified books and records. A vendor's false or fraudulent return or statement or willful evasion of the excise tax is punishable by criminal penalties.
The antis strategy is working as designed.Quote:
SECTION 20. Safety clause. The general assembly finds,
determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate
preservation of the public peace, health, or safety or for appropriations for
the support and maintenance of the departments of the state and state
institutions.
Don’t you feel safer now?[Sarcasm2]
BP:
I know you are being sarcastic, and rightfully so, but it's actually phrasing to get it enacted immediately:
"In Colorado, a safety clause is a standard provision added to legislation, stating the act is "necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety," which prevents citizens from using the standard referendum process (petition to put it on the ballot) to block the law, making it effective sooner........"
Just so you know.
It's inclusion is alot more sinister than it sounds.
Everyone here surely agrees that NO tax legitimately serves to provide for the safety of anything. Ever. At all.
Of course, the anti's see firearms and firearm accessories (to include ammunition) as a public safety issue, en total. By implementing a burdensome tax on these items acts as a deterrence from individuals exercising their right to purchase/own these "public safety" items (as stated by BPTactical). The entire premise is disingenuous and a liberal workaround on a Constitutional right (2A) to continue to their goal of eliminating the law-abiding from purchasing or owning these items.
We really need this to be contested in the federal courts soon since they have been finding similar burdens on the ability to exercise 2A rights to be un-Constitutional. But once the makeup of the current court justices changes, it'd be a crap shoot.
The registration requirement... it took us hours to get thru to complete the registration.
Same with SARCO, devoted a whole lot of hours over days to get thru the registration process.
It sends a message doesn't it?
Richard
You're misunderstanding the reason they included the safety clause in this law. It's a legal term. And its still bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by theGinsue
Regardless.
It is being challenged but it has to start in the City or State court. I think in April- it starts???
Then upon appeal it'll go up.
There's a legal reason for it to start local but it will slow this appeal down (and more cost) as it winds its way to the Federal side of things.