BELLEVUE, WA – Attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation and the senior editor of its publication, TheGunMag.com, have filed a renewed motion for summary judgment against the City of Seattle for its refusal to provide specific revenue information on the city’s so-called “gun violence tax.”
“Seattle’s continued refusal to reveal specific revenue data on its so-called ‘gun violence tax’ amounts to the city thumbing its nose at the Public Records Act (PRA),” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “Our renewed motion includes an important statement from the city’s largest firearms retailer that includes a stunning revelation that may explain the city’s reluctance to come clean with an aggregate revenue figure.
“When the city said it had collected less than $200,000,” he added, “it is apparently a lot less. Their pie-in-the-sky revenue forecast when they rammed the tax through appears to have consisted of hot air and road apples.”
Editor Dave Workman maintains that this is a First Amendment issue, and that the public has a right to know whether the original revenue forecast of between $300,000 to $500,000 was even remotely accurate.
“The bottom line,” said Gottlieb, who also serves as TheGunMag.com publisher, “is that the people deserve an accurate revenue figure and the city stubbornly does not want to release it. Their argument that this is a taxpayer privacy issue just went up in smoke. We believe their reluctance to reveal a revenue figure has far more to do with the potential embarrassment of having been disastrously optimistic about the money they’d realize from what amounts to a gun control tax. We’re hopeful the court finds in our favor and forces the city to stop playing hide-and-seek.”
Attorneys Steven Fogg and David Edwards, with Corr Cronin Michelson, Baumgardner Fogg & Moore LLP represent SAF and TheGunMag.com in this case, and also represent SAF, the National Rifle Association and National Shooting Sports Foundation in a challenge to the gun tax that has been referred to the state Supreme Court. The tax is being challenged as a violation of the 34-year-old state preemption act.