Silencer/suppressor Tax?


PDA






SwampFox
August 11, 2008, 09:09 PM
Rumor has it that silencers may be removed from weapon status and no longer require the $200.00 transfer tax.

Does anyone have a reference for this? I can't find anything on the net.

If you enjoyed reading about "Silencer/suppressor Tax?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Kharn
August 11, 2008, 09:12 PM
Anyone can dream, but I havent heard of any bills moving in the House or Senate that would accomplish that.

Kharn

dalepres
August 11, 2008, 10:24 PM
And then you woke up? :D

SwampFox
August 11, 2008, 11:45 PM
Supposedly it was pushed by OSHA for safety/heariing reasons. Written but not yet voted on.

IT is starting to look like BS.

bigjohnson
August 12, 2008, 09:42 AM
The only way that OSHA would get involved in the effect that gunshot noise has on hearing is if the person doing the shooting is doing so as part of his job. That's why the name of the agency is the OCCUPATIONAL Safety & Health Administration.

El Tejon
August 12, 2008, 11:42 AM
Rumor has it that silencers may be removed from weapon status and no longer require the $200.00 transfer tax.

It's no rumor. It was a proposal I have been pushing since about 1988--move suppressors to Title I with federal preemption.

I've written everyone, including GOA, NRA, the NRA board of directors, gun rags (there's a letter to the editor in Guns maybe 8 or 9 years ago). Heck, there's a thread on THR about it that was made a sticky and then the mods freaked out after the 2006 elections and took it down.

Here's the THR thread: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=226347

Supposedly it was pushed by OSHA for safety/heariing reasons. Written but not yet voted on.

Wow, the Rumor Mill has transmorgified my proposals from 20 years ago to having the power of the federal government behind them!:D

IT is starting to look like BS.

Hey, don't call my work BS, what are you, one of my ex-girlfriends?:D

FourTeeFive
August 12, 2008, 12:00 PM
I never understood why suppressors weren't at least the $5 tax stamp instead of $200. After all, they aren't even a weapon. And a full-auto integrally-suppressed weapon is only $200 instead of $200 for the suppressor and $200 for the full-auto firearm.

Then again, I'm trying to make sense out of the government...

SwampFox
August 12, 2008, 12:15 PM
What I'm gleaning is that there is no law presently under consideration.

I always thought the idea that a hired killer would abide by the suppressor ban was absurd.

Thanks for your responses.

Prince Yamato
August 12, 2008, 12:58 PM
Actually the suppressor tax was not to prevent killers from getting them, it was to prevent poor people from using them to hunt during the depression.

ServiceSoon
August 12, 2008, 09:14 PM
Actually the suppressor tax was not to prevent killers from getting them, it was to prevent poor people from using them to hunt during the depression.Evidence?

bigjohnson
August 12, 2008, 09:23 PM
During the congressional hearing prior to the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934, representatives of several state game & fish agencies testified that poachers hunting with suppressors were a problem in their states, and asked the congress to include suppressors in the definition of "firearms" covered by the soon-to-be-passed NFA.
Most people don't know this, but President Roosevelt wanted pistols and revolvers covered by the NFA also, but the congress refused to go along with him on that. Under FDR's proposal, handguns would have been taxed at the $200 rate, and handgun ammunition would have been taxed at $1 per round.

dalepres
August 12, 2008, 09:27 PM
Roosevelt would love today's congress. He'd have gotten what he wanted for sure.

FourTeeFive
August 13, 2008, 12:28 AM
So in 1934 the tax stamp was $200? That was a lot of cash back then!

ScottsGT
August 13, 2008, 08:43 AM
So in 1934 the tax stamp was $200? That was a lot of cash back then!

BINGO!
That was the idea. Tax them out of existance. My Grandfather owned a Thompson that he gave up to the Sherriffs dept. because he could not afford (well, didn't want to spend $200 to keep it) Funny thing was, it was given to him by the Sherriffs dept as a gift when he left as Sherriff to go back into the Army before WWII. Grandpa didn't have any foresight!

El Tejon
August 13, 2008, 12:51 PM
Why give it up? Why not just leave the bolt out of it???:confused:

ScottsGT
August 13, 2008, 12:58 PM
Don't ask me, that was in 1941!! I didn't come around until 1962. Aren't you registering the frame though, and not the bolt?

Kharn
August 13, 2008, 03:17 PM
ScottsGT:
Before 1968, if the MG was not complete (ie, bolt removed and stored seperately) the NFA tax did not apply. Practically the only way to get in trouble would be to have the feds actually witness you shooting it and even then, you had three choices: buy a tax stamp on the spot for $200, surrender the weapon or go to jail.

In '68 the law was changed to say that an MG reciever (or parts to convert a semiauto to fullauto) had to be registered even if it had no other parts attached.

Kharn

Thernlund
August 13, 2008, 03:23 PM
I never understood why suppressors weren't at least the $5 tax stamp instead of $200. After all, they aren't even a weapon.

Ok folks... who's up for a class action?

Will the next Dick Heller please stand up.


-T.

Voerelover
August 14, 2008, 10:30 AM
They will remove suppressors from nfa tax when pigs fly!

DoubleTapDrew
August 14, 2008, 01:34 PM
There are no valid reasons to have a 100% tax on them (or even keep them title 2).
What objections would there be to decreasing the tax to $5? They'll be used in crimes? What criminal goes through NFA registration hoops? Especially for an item they'll likely use in a crime, especially for something that could be accomplished with a 2 liter soda bottle (not that criminals seem the least bit concerned by noise anyway, you don't hear about many suppressed drive-bys or murders).
After the usual Brady shouting about "blood in the streets" dies down and people say "gee, I guess they are just used by law abiding people...and I don't have to listen to gunshots during my morning coffee from that range nearby", there can be a push to remove them from NFA.

Gunnerpalace
August 14, 2008, 06:49 PM
Somebody tell me when was the last time you heard of a "Hollywood" style killing with a silencer.

Thernlund
August 14, 2008, 06:52 PM
Ummm... I think that's kind of the point of a "silencer". So nobody will "hear" about it.


-T.

Conqueror
August 14, 2008, 06:56 PM
And a full-auto integrally-suppressed weapon is only $200 instead of $200 for the suppressor and $200 for the full-auto firearm.

That is not correct. Any suppressor, be it integral or removable, is $200. Any full-auto is $200. MP5SDs are two-stamp guns.

El Tejon
August 14, 2008, 07:23 PM
Don't ask me, that was in 1941!! I didn't come around until 1962. Aren't you registering the frame though, and not the bolt?

That change did not transpire until 6 years after you were born. From 1934 to November 1968 your grandfather could have just kept the bolt out of the weapon. Is this a family bear thread story told to all the kids or something?:confused:

mp510
August 14, 2008, 08:48 PM
That is not correct. Any suppressor, be it integral or removable, is $200. Any full-auto is $200. MP5SDs are two-stamp guns.
There is an ATF letter from the '70s that says that a machinegun with an integral silencer permenantly attached to the reciever is a one-stamp gun.

Conqueror
August 14, 2008, 09:32 PM
There is also an ATF letter that says a shoestring is a machine gun, and another one that says a shoestring is no longer a machine gun.

ScottsGT
August 15, 2008, 08:33 AM
That change did not transpire until 6 years after you were born. From 1934 to November 1968 your grandfather could have just kept the bolt out of the weapon. Is this a family bear thread story told to all the kids or something?
Well, Dad remembers Grandpa shooting the gun in the back yard. He also remembers the brromhandle mauser with stock and the 3 Colts that his brother "stole" when Grand dad passed away. Slime ball arrived at the home late after everyone went out for dinner the evening everyone was arriving to town, cleaned out the house of all the firearms he wanted and left early before all the brothers worked out the details of who got what. He died with none of his brothers saying goodby or attending his funeral. Hope he enjoyed those guns.....
Granddad was a Colonel in Pacific during WWII and an enlisted man in Europe during WWI, he had the opportunity to bring home all kinds of toys.

VARifleman
August 15, 2008, 06:46 PM
Ummm... I think that's kind of the point of a "silencer". So nobody will "hear" about it.


-T.
You obviously haven't been near one on the range. If you can honestly call 100+ db (and many 130+) quiet...you need to have your ears checked.

Thernlund
August 15, 2008, 06:50 PM
You obviously haven't been near one on the range.

I own one, brother.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=322807

It was half a joke anyway.


-T.

VARifleman
August 15, 2008, 11:34 PM
It is customary to follow jokes with the correct emoticon so that people do not misinterpret what you have written.

Thernlund
August 16, 2008, 12:10 AM
Yeah. You're right. My bad. Sometimes I'm a bit "dry".


-T.

Limeyfellow
August 16, 2008, 01:35 AM
It is kind of sad that countries that have far more restrictive laws let you have suppressors without any of the junk to go through like we do in the US, and are actually encouraged for the benefits they offer. Then again many laws in the great depression were enacted like this to crack down on advantages of the poor and immigrants, especially the Mexicans. Most of our antigun and antidrug policies are due to this.

Conqueror
August 16, 2008, 09:58 AM
You obviously haven't been near one on the range. If you can honestly call 100+ db (and many 130+) quiet...you need to have your ears checked.

While not "silent" they are plenty quiet to kill someone without being noticed. I live on a quiet cul-de-sac, my house is about 20 feet from the neighbors. I shoot my silenced ruger between our houses and no one even opens the blinds.

If you enjoyed reading about "Silencer/suppressor Tax?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!