Use power of the purse to curb the gun violence in California

The opening of the “Joker” film across the country has reignited a conversation on the role guns and violence play in our society. From superheroes to sympathetic super-villains, guns are introduced to us as a symbol of power and control; a fairy-tale promise of dominance and self-preservation. The reality, however, is a story of cold, hard cash propping up politicians who turn a blind eye as gun violence, mass shootings and local terrorist attacks cost innocent families everything while the gun industry profits hand over fist.

The overwhelming majority of Americans — 73% of them, according to a Quinnipiac poll from May of this year — agree that something must be done to address our gun violence epidemic. Mothers and fathers, students and celebrities constantly lobby the White House and Senate to take action but can’t afford to buy the votes they need to secure systemic change.

While we can’t count on the federal government to address this issue, California’s imposing economic and legislative clout compels us to take action where Washington, D.C., won’t. Our path to further reducing gun violence comes down to using the power of the purse. In other words, California businesses, legislators and pension funds have enough financial and policy muscle to cut into manufacturers’ bottom line.

Currently federal law sets an excise tax on imported firearms and ammunition. Established in 1919, the tax adds 10% to the sales price of pistols and revolvers, and 11% for rifles and shotguns, and ammunition. Imagine if every gun purchased — regardless of its manufacturer — came with a massive tax (think 50%-75%) that made the cost to purchase it far less accessible. Add to that a similar surcharge for ammunition, and the purchase and use of deadly weapons would be effectively obstructed.

And let’s not stop with gun purchasers. Adding similar taxes for anyone who sells guns could discourage people from entering the business. Those who do decide to sell guns may opt to hand down the extra fees to their customers, making gun ownership even more unaffordable.

Capping it all off, these new revenues for the government could fund additional safety measures like gun education and buy-back programs. It’s a win-win that could dramatically curb gun violence across the country.

The California Legislature, with a Democratic supermajority, ought to consider a similar excise tax on the sale of guns and ammo. Recently a bill was introduced in the Assembly aimed at implementing a proposal along these lines. This is a good start, and we should continue to pursue the concept.

The CalPERS board should finally tighten the purse strings on its $355 billion portfolio and divest from firearm and other related industries.

Businesses should wield their economic influence as well. I put this principle into practice with Aspiration, an online financial institution I cofounded in 2013, which never allows its customers’ funds to be lent to weapons manufacturers. If the entire business community came together to take a stand on this issue, we could slash weapons industry profits and reduce the sale of guns nationwide.

If all this sounds too good to be true, consider the case of cigarettes. Another public health scourge that experts and leaders have wanted to disincentivize, smoking became more and more expensive in recent years as some municipalities heaped onerous taxes and fees on each purchase. In 2017, here in California, our cigarette excise tax jumped to nearly $3 a pack. The result? Within three months, some cigarette retailers in the state reported a 50% drop in sales.

Imagine if we achieved the same with guns. Many American lives would likely be saved. And, once again, California would be leading the way.