SAF Attorney Kostas Moros Argues California’s 11% Gun ‘Sin Tax’ and Colorado’s 6.5% Levy Fail Bruen in New Law Review Article

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

BELLEVUE, WA — Second Amendment Foundation attorney Kostas Moros published his second law review article today, arguing that special taxes aimed at common firearms and ammunition are unconstitutional under the historical test the Supreme Court set out in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

The paper, Excising the Second Amendment: Why Taxes Targeting Common Firearms Are Unconstitutional, was released as Working Paper No. 2026-10 through the University of Wyoming College of Law Firearms Research Center. Moros is SAF’s Director of Legal Research and Education. SAF announced the publication in a release today.

The argument is simple. Under Bruen, a modern gun regulation has to line up with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Moros went looking for that tradition on taxes and says it is not there. Before 1900, the few American laws that taxed weapons were limited to items like bowie knives and pocket pistols, weapons many people of the time treated as outside Second Amendment protection. Those laws were outliers concentrated in Southern states, and some applied only when the weapon was carried, not when it was purchased. Almost without exception, they left the prevailing combat and self-defense arms of the day alone.

Moros is direct about what the modern versions are for. A legislature that cannot ban a constitutional right outright can make exercising it progressively more expensive until ordinary people cannot afford it. He compares the tactic to laws used to suppress the rights of freed Black Americans during the Jim Crow era.

According to SAF’s release, the paper takes aim at California’s 11 percent tax on firearms and ammunition, which the state enacted in 2023 and openly called a “sin tax,” along with Colorado’s 6.5 percent tax, the federal Pittman-Robertson excise tax, and National Firearms Act taxes to the extent they apply to commonly owned arms. The distinction that runs through the whole paper is between taxes that single out guns, ammunition and related items and taxes that apply generally to all goods. Only the first kind is in his crosshairs.

“A right that the government can price out of reach is not a right,” Moros said. “Under Bruen, the question is not whether a tax is good policy or whether the burden feels modest to a judge. Rather, the question is whether special taxes on common arms are consistent with our historical tradition. They are not. Legislatures that cannot ban guns outright should not be allowed to accomplish the same result with unconstitutional taxation.”

More from USA Carry:

SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said Moros joined the organization a little over a year ago, leads its amicus program, and has authored more than 20 briefs since July of last year. “Hostile states are experimenting with new ways to make armed self-defense unaffordable, and his latest article lays out why those taxes fail under the Second Amendment,” Kraut said. “This research gives litigators and courts a historical roadmap to help fight these unconstitutional taxes in courtrooms across the nation.”

The practical point for gun owners is who these taxes actually hit. An 11 percent surcharge is a rounding error for someone buying a fourth safe queen. It is real money for a single parent in a rough neighborhood buying a first handgun and a box of ammunition to learn it with. The people a “sin tax” prices out are the people who most need to be able to defend themselves, and a paper that hands litigators the historical record to attack that is a useful piece of work.