Interesting way to challenge the 1986 transfer ban.


PDA






jlbraun
July 8, 2006, 10:18 PM
Think about this. Consider what would happen if the section of the 1986 FOPA involving closing the NFA registry was repealed, but the transfer tax stayed per the NFA. Wouldn't the BATFE just love to have a couple million transfers every few years of new NFA weapons, each to the tune of $200? That would certainly contribute to their bottom line, and they could be required to put the money towards improving the background check system. Wouldn't repealing this stupid, market-distorting law be in their best interest?

No arguments about rights, Constitutionality, freedom, etc. which they've shown they are incapable of listening to. How about, "Guys, you will get BIGGER BUDGETS from doing this?"

I guess what I'm asking is "Can we pound it into the head of the BATFE that supporting a repeal of the FOPA is in their own financial best interest?" Has this tactic been tried?

Discuss.

(edited to reflect repealing a section of the FOPA, not the whole thing)

If you enjoyed reading about "Interesting way to challenge the 1986 transfer ban." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Devonai
July 8, 2006, 10:26 PM
Hmm, it's not a horrible idea, but the agency doesn't seem to be doing so great with the budget they already have.

orangelo
July 9, 2006, 12:26 AM
It was never about generating revenue or the democrats never would have banned the paying of the tax for MGs.

I don't see how that can be constitutional. The entire purpose of a tax is to generate revenue for the government, but then they go and pass another law saying it is illegal to pay the tax.

So you're going to jail unless you pay us the tax you owe. Oh by the way, we aren't accepting tax payments at this time. Welcome to the gulag.

What kind of orwellian BS is that? :banghead:

Car Knocker
July 9, 2006, 12:56 AM
As I recall, the money goes to the Treasury and not to the BATFe budget.

Hawkmoon
July 9, 2006, 01:46 AM
Let me get this straight: You want to REPEAL the Federal law that allows me to drive with my personally-owned firearms in the vehicle through such gun-friendly places as Chicago or Boston or New York City or the entire state of New Jersey or Maryland, legally?

Tell me again why this would be a good idea?

Gifted
July 9, 2006, 02:01 AM
Actually, there was a decision that said that since they won't accept the tax, you can't get in trouble for that. There's still penalties for 922o though

jlbraun
July 9, 2006, 02:55 AM
OK, I stand corrected. How about "The bad parts of FOPA are repealed." The last-minute section is the only one I'm talking about, the one that restricts the NFA registry. The rest of the useful sections should stay.

Firethorn
July 9, 2006, 03:18 PM
Interesting thought. I'd support it.

It's not like they could investigate me much more. Being a holder of a TS clearance, there's not much more they could do. Heck, the investigation would be dirt cheap. Plug my SS# into the sytem. Yep, he's cleared.

P0832177
July 9, 2006, 04:37 PM
It is not a transfer ban, it banned further mfg. for civilian consumption of machine guns! There are about 200K transfereable NFA items out there! SBR, SBS, and sound suppressors still can mfg. There are some good parts to the act, like being able to buy reloading components and ammo via mail.....by the private individual. So, your broad strokes need a bit of refinement!

Jim K
July 9, 2006, 04:39 PM
Do you guys seriously think ANY member of Congress is going to introduce such legislation or that it would have a chance? Imagine the headline:

"Senator Klotz introduces legislation to allow terrorists and maniacal killers to buy machineguns."

Sure.

Jim

LaVere
July 9, 2006, 05:00 PM
I'm sorry if I don't have the model numbers correct. When I was in the Army it was just M-14. Mine didn't have da switch :mad:
I and a friend went to a gun show today and this dealer had two "M-14s full auto". They were about the same condition. One made for Law Enforcenment
$2000.00 little pricey for a used M-14 ( My thoughts) The pre ban if that is what it is called. Was $25,000.00 I said to my friend *** I asked the salesman to repeat the price. Now don't get me wrong the salesman was very nice person and he explained the what ever law it was, to this dummy. I just could not believe the difference in price for the SAME GUN. When is the insane madness going to stop. About one price for "them " and an outrageous price to us? Just do a NCIC check if you must and just sell me the darn thing, If I wanted one and I don't.

I'm still in sticker shock. Are any groups working on this to get it changed?
:banghead:

Monkeyleg
July 9, 2006, 05:12 PM
I'm with Jim Keenan on this one.

Prior to 1986, probably 99% of the public didn't know that possession of full-auto's could be legal. Even after the FOPA, the public doesn't know. Nor do most gun owners.

The press wouldn't rush to explain that full auto's have been legal, but heavily regulated, since 1934. Instead, they'd make it sound like a brand new idea, and a very bad idea.

pcf
July 9, 2006, 05:47 PM
At the rate the national deficit increases daily about 1.75 billion dollars or 640 billion dollars annually, one million tax stamps collected per year amounts to chump change. It would take 32,000,000 tax stamps to equal one percent of the increase of the deficit. There's no way that generating revenue can help solve a spending problem. There's no way that tax stamps can generate enough revenue to affect the deficit in any meaningful way.

Don't ever recommend a plan to a politician that contributes to the bottom line, you might get what you ask for.

edited:my math is terrible....

telomerase
July 9, 2006, 05:57 PM
At the rate the national deficit increases daily about 1.75 billion dollars or 640 billion dollars annually

You're leaving out the Social Security obligations, Medicare and Medicaid obligations, Aid To Dependent Dictators agreements with the banks, and other off-the-books deficits.

Stop being so unrealistically optimistic :uhoh:

pcf
July 9, 2006, 06:04 PM
You're leaving out the Social Security obligations, Medicare and Medicaid obligations, Aid To Dependent Dictators agreements with the banks, and other off-the-books deficits.

Didn't you get the memo? those don't count yet as the check hasn't been cashed. :rolleyes: I didn't mention supplementals for the GWOT, about $100 billion for the remainder of the fiscal year, but that check hasn't been cashed either. And the list goes on and on. Back to the point, recommending more money for a government that has an out of control spending problem is a bad idea.

mp510
July 9, 2006, 09:50 PM
When you say that the FOPA would be gotten rid of, I assume you are referring to the entire law, not just the closure of the NFA registry. If that is the case, than I would much rather keep the FOPA and the closed registry, since the rights guaranteed by the FOPA are much more beneficial to most gun owners than opening the NFA registry.

Gifted
July 10, 2006, 02:35 AM
Something that interests me is that several people here failed to note the highlighted text:
Consider what would happen if the section of the 1986 FOPA involving closing the NFA registry was repealed, but the transfer tax stayed per the NFA.
He wasn't referring to the whole thing. Just the crappy part.

jlbraun
July 10, 2006, 02:45 AM
To clarify, I edited my original posting. I originally thought that the FOPA was entirely bad, but realized that the only terrible section was the last one.

Bubbles
July 10, 2006, 08:12 AM
Do you guys seriously think ANY member of Congress is going to introduce such legislation or that it would have a chance?

Sure I do. And it'll happen this year, and the bill will be sponsored by a Democrat. :neener:

You read it here first...

jlbraun
July 10, 2006, 11:02 AM
Well, given that politicians tend to believe misused statistics, one could say "You know, Class III weapons owned by citizens have never been used in crimes since the inception of the NFA, so opening the registry will drive gun crime down.":evil:

KIDGLOCK
July 10, 2006, 05:02 PM
m sorry if I don't have the model numbers correct. When I was in the Army it was just M-14. Mine didn't have da switch
I and a friend went to a gun show today and this dealer had two "M-14s full auto". They were about the same condition. One made for Law Enforcenment
$2000.00 little pricey for a used M-14 ( My thoughts) The pre ban if that is what it is called. Was $25,000.00 I said to my friend *** I asked the salesman to repeat the price. Now don't get me wrong the salesman was very nice person and he explained the what ever law it was, to this dummy. I just could not believe the difference in price for the SAME GUN. When is the insane madness going to stop. About one price for "them " and an outrageous price to us? Just do a NCIC check if you must and just sell me the darn thing, If I wanted one and I don't.

I'm still in sticker shock. Are any groups working on this to get it changed?


There are very few M14s that can be transffered to us mere mortals , thats why they cost so much . Hows about a GE mini gun for $340,000 or the brand new in the box M240 for 175K . Once all these guns wear out thats it no more . I remember as a lad a friend of my dads buying an M60 for 1500 bucks , now its worth 25 times that much.

ctdonath
July 10, 2006, 08:39 PM
I'm still in sticker shock. Are any groups working on this to get it changed?Supply and demand. Very few transferrable machineguns, lots of people who want them. Doesn't help that the available ones are either wearing out from use or becoming unusably collectable.

Yes people are working on getting it changed. Courts are doing everything they can - include ignore the law - to blow off suitable cases. Legislators won't touch it, as only a miniscule number of fanatics (us) think legalizing machineguns is worth spending political capital on.

If you enjoyed reading about "Interesting way to challenge the 1986 transfer ban." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!