[TheOtherOne]

So I can buy this shotgun and I only have to pay a $5 tax to the ATF:

http://www.impactguns.com/store/media/aow_mariner.jpg

Or I can buy this shotgun and I have to pay a $200 tax to the ATF:

http://www.impactguns.com/store/media/sbs_590.jpg

It's crap that I even have to pay a tax and fill out paperwork in the first place... but isn't the first gun eviler than the second? Where's the logic?

[M1911Owner]

Just be happy that they haven't increased the tax. IIRC, that's the same rate as when they imposed the tax in 1934. $200 in 1934 is probably something like $5000 or so in today's dollars.

[Hkmp5sd]

The logic is the first gun does not meet the official federal definition of a shotgun because it is not designed to be fired from the shoulder. If it's not a shotgun, must be something else. Since they didn't know what to call the guns that didn't meet their definitions, they created a "Any Other Weapon" catagory.


Welcome to the bureaucracy!:)

[ctdonath]

More goofy is that depending on the state, one may be legal and the other not. I have the first one, and can carry it around in NY no problem, but the latter is verboten.

FWIW: The latter is much more useable, permitting proper sighted fire and useable with any ammo. I'm never firing slugs thru the former again, lest I lose my thumb.

(Gotta say...the M590AOW + birdshot + pumpkin makes for a great combination...)

[TheOtherOne]

That's why I want the second one. They are the exact same price at the dealer, but I would end up paying $200 more for it because of that tax.

The first one just looks more evil though so it should get the higher tax! They should of made the law based on evility alone. Then they could put huge taxes on BB guns like this and get more revenue:

http://www.montysminiguns.com/backpack.jpg

[4v50 Gary]

I'd gladly pay $200 but my Totalitarian and communistic granola munching, kumbaya singing happy happy state won't allow me to own one.

[Wakal]

I thought that a cut-down shotgun was a "destructive device", but a purpose-built shotgun with a sub-18" barrel was a "any other weapon"...

:confused:

Lost myself with that question...how about this: A legal shotgun that was later fitted with a short barrel is a DD, but a shotgun that was built (new) with a short barrel is a AOW. Is that right?





Alex

[G-Raptor]

There is no logic, just regulations. :banghead:

[Jeff OTMG]

The first one is not a shotgun, it is a smooth bored pistol, hence an AOW and only $5. The second is a short barrelled shotgun, class III, and a $200 transfer.

[Hkmp5sd]

Lost myself with that question...how about this: A legal shotgun that was later fitted with a short barrel is a DD, but a shotgun that was built (new) with a short barrel is a AOW. Is that right?

Not quite. A shotgun later fitted with a barrel less than 18" or reduced to an overall length less than 26" is a "Short Barreled Shotgun" or SBS.

Shotguns that do not meet the definition of SBS, AOW or the director's definition of sporting guns are classified as DD's, such as the Streetsweeper, Striker-12 and USAS-12.

[Bob Locke]

I've always wondered if a legal challenge could be brought against transfer taxes. If poll taxes are illegal based on not taxing someone who is exercising a Constitutional right, then why can't that logic be extended to firearms?

[ctdonath]

A related case was ruled on just 3 years after the law was enacted:

Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506 (1937) (http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/sonzinsky.txt) - This is a case before Miller where the court reviewed the constitutionality of federal regulation of gun dealers; by requiring a special occupational tax (SOT) of dealers in NFA weapons. Sonzinsky was pedding NFA guns w/o the SOT. The court decides, based in large part of its review of the Narcotic Act previously, that the government may enact a tax for whatever it wants. As long as it facially raises revenue, it is fine. This case is often cited as upholding the transfer taxes, which have serious 2nd amendment implications when it does not. It only reviewed the dealer regulation. This case does not address the registration of guns, or transfer taxes, although it is often cited to that effect.