OAJ Hot Take: From Sin Taxes to Gun Safety
The OAJ is currently looking for interested students to join our team! If you’ve read our work before (or if this is your first time), and you like what we do, please email OAJ Executive Editor Tom Porter at openair@brandeis.edu to join the journal.
The piece below is part of our weekly blog post series written by the Open-Air Journal team where we explore issues at Heller, current events, or whatever is presently on our minds
In the realm of public policy, firearm and ammunition tax policies bear striking resemblance to "sin taxes" imposed on products like tobacco and alcohol. Sin taxes aim to deter harmful behavior while generating revenue for societal benefit. Income generated from sin taxes is typically allocated among various governmental initiatives, with a portion saved for aiding individuals in need through treatment programs. However, the application of such taxes to firearms and ammunition raises unique challenges, particularly concerning constitutional rights and public safety. Drawing parallels to sin taxes can offer valuable insights into how policymakers might navigate these complexities while mitigating health risks associated with gun violence.
Sin taxes, traditionally levied on products like tobacco, alcohol, and sugary beverages, are designed to discourage the consumption of goods deemed harmful to public health. By increasing the cost of these items, policymakers aim to reduce demand while simultaneously generating revenue for public health initiatives and offsetting associated societal costs, such as healthcare expenses and law enforcement efforts.
Similarly, firearm and ammunition taxes can serve dual purposes: revenue generation and gun regulation. By increasing the cost of gun ownership, policymakers seek to deter certain individuals from purchasing firearms, particularly those who may pose a higher risk of committing gun violence. Additionally, revenue from these taxes can be set aside for initiatives aimed at reducing the prevalence and impact of gun violence, similar to public health programs funded by sin taxes.
Over 100 years ago, the federal government introduced excise taxes on firearms and ammunition. Today, Section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Service collects a 10 percent excise tax on pistols and revolvers, and an 11 percent tax on other firearms, cartridges, and shells to curb gun violence.
In 2023, California implemented the first excise tax on firearms and ammunition, following a Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. This was complemented by a bill projected to yield approximately $13 million annually, supporting trauma centers and crime prevention initiatives.
The federal government could use taxation on firearms and ammunition to fund prevention methods and provide financial support to alleviate the costs caused by gun violence. Implementing a firearm-specific tax signals societal concern on par with other sin taxes, potentially deterring some individuals—especially those undecided or with limited funds—from acquiring firearms. Over time, an excise tax would reduce the supply of firearms.
Despite the potential benefits of firearm and ammunition tax policy, there are significant legal hurdles. Constitutional considerations, including Second Amendment rights, require careful balancing with public health objectives. Additionally, addressing concerns about equity and unintended consequences is essential to ensure that vulnerable communities are not disproportionately affected by these policies.
Gun rights advocates fear that taxing firearms and ammunition will infringe upon Second Amendment rights. However, states and localities can impose such taxes without severely limiting access, thus maintaining Second Amendment rights. By using the tax code, the debate can shift from solely Second Amendment concerns to addressing both gun owners' rights and societal costs. Critics argue the taxation is unfair to law-abiding citizens, but evidence suggests otherwise. Taxing high-risk items can deter their purchase without disproportionately affecting responsible gun owners. In Connecticut, where 42 percent of households own firearms, the burden of gun violence falls unfairly on the majority who don't own guns, despite everyone equally sharing the financial burden.
There's also concern that this taxation will disproportionately affect low-income individuals. Although implementing a tax on firearms may disproportionately affect low-income individuals, it's crucial to acknowledge that these communities already bear the brunt of gun violence. Taking action through taxation recognizes the severity of the issue and actively works towards mitigating its impact. This step forward addresses the root causes of gun violence and invests in the safety and well-being of all communities, particularly those most vulnerable. Opting for minimal efforts or doing nothing only perpetuates the cycle of violence and neglect. Therefore, despite the challenges, implementing a tax to address gun violence is a crucial measure that demonstrates a commitment to protecting lives and promoting safer communities for everyone.
On both state and federal levels, revenue generated from firearm and ammunition taxes could be allocated towards funding initiatives to reduce health risks associated with gun violence. These initiatives should encompass various strategies such as mental health services, violence intervention programs, and research into effective prevention methods. Additionally, education and awareness campaigns, similar to those for tobacco and alcohol, play a pivotal role in promoting safe firearm storage practices, responsible ownership, and increasing awareness about mental health issues related to firearms. These efforts are crucial in curbing accidents, suicides, and violence. Policymakers need to carefully consider firearm and ammunition tax policies, drawing lessons from sin taxes to effectively reduce gun violence while upholding rights and ensuring equity. Although empirical evidence on the impact of taxation on firearm-related outcomes is limited, directing tax revenues towards prevention initiatives presents a promising approach in addressing the root causes of gun violence and promoting public safety.
Connect with this creator: