LEO weapons to stay banned due to excise tax!


PDA






VaniB.
June 14, 2004, 03:53 PM
Oh brother! The more I hunt around for positive information about us purchasing currently stamped Colt LEO rifles on September 14, the more I hear from others to "Forgetta bout it!"

This is the latest angle I have heard:

Being that the post 1994 Colt LEO rifles ( CAR 6520, 6721 A3, 6920 M4, etc.)were manufactured exlusivly for law enforcement under the Clinton Ban (and are stamped as such), they were exempt from the 11% excise tax. Therefore, I was told that these stamped rifles will still be bound by the rules and red tape that they were manufactured under, and will remain transferable only to Law Enforcement individuals even after the Law's Sunset.

Does this sound possible?

What worries me, is that there's not going to be a lot of time to sit around to wait to buy a 2005 Colt Rifle that doesn't have the markings. Because as you know, due to political corectness, Colt will not be planning on releasing these type weapons to the civilian market after the ban anyway. The best chance of owning one before Kerry gets in, or a ban is reanacted by Bush in 2005 is to buy a stamped one on September 14. Now I hear that the thousands of stamped rifles out there will probably remain LEO!

If you enjoyed reading about "LEO weapons to stay banned due to excise tax!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
GigaBuist
June 14, 2004, 04:25 PM
There's an 11% excise tax on firearms for civilian sale?!

:fire:

An excise tax on a natural human right. Please, for the love of God, don't let this be true.

Ukraine Train
June 14, 2004, 04:38 PM
I'm not up to snuff on my ban language. How is an LEO rifle different from an AR that you can buy now? You can still get them with 30 round mags and muzzle brakes. Is it just the minimum barrel length that's restricted?

Wildalaska
June 14, 2004, 04:41 PM
Rifles sold to LE agencies are tax exempt...rifles for individual sales are not..

So if I order 45 rifles for the alaska state troopers on a LE PO, they are FET ou...but if I have rifles in stock, they are tax paid...

If I have rifles in stock that I later sell to an agency under a tax exempt PO, I apply back for the tax and Colt gives it to me..

Colt has made no decsion as to the configuration of their rifles after the ban expires.

WildhopethatanswersthequestionAlaska

Gray Peterson
June 14, 2004, 04:47 PM
Just an FYI: Bush cannot re enact the AWB by himself, it's Congress that has to do it. Even if Kerry wins, if he can't get Congress to pass an AWB, he can't pass one himself.

Not to complain way too much, but I get exceedingly angry when people spout out "When Bush or Kerry re enacts the ban". They CANNOT do it by themselves. They need Congress to send them a piece of Legislation.

G1FAL
June 14, 2004, 04:56 PM
Just an FYI: Bush cannot re enact the AWB by himself, it's Congress that has to do it. Even if Kerry wins, if he can't get Congress to pass an AWB, he can't pass one himself.

Not to complain way too much, but I get exceedingly angry when people spout out "When Bush or Kerry re enacts the ban". They CANNOT do it by themselves. They need Congress to send them a piece of Legislation.

Sorry to say, but I got news for ya, pal.

Its called an Executive Order. King Bush the First used one to effectively KILL all imports of the fun stuff like AK's, FALs, etc. We got around it by adding US parts to them to bring them to within compliance with that spectacularly stupid EO, but how long till some dipstick in the White House decides to use the EO to make the AWB permanent? I'd be willing to bet that Scumbag Kerry is salivating over the thought of having the EO power. He's probably got a sponge taped to his jaw whenever he isnt in public to collect all the slime running out of his maw.

Jeff White
June 14, 2004, 04:57 PM
Wildalaska is correct. Individual officers paid the FET on weapons they purchased. I paid it for my Colt R6920. I would expect that after the ban sunsets I would be able to sell it to anyone I like (no, it's not for sale nor will it be).

After the ban sunsets there will be no such thing as a semiautomatic assault weapon and those firearms marked For Law Enforcement, Military or Export Use Only should just be a reminder of ten years of federal infringment of our rights.

Jeff

TallPine
June 14, 2004, 04:59 PM
The excise tax is Pittman-Roberts which goes (or is supposed to go) to wildlife agencies, isn't that correct .....?

Graystar
June 14, 2004, 05:21 PM
There's an 11% excise tax on firearms for civilian sale?! And a 10% excise tax on every pistol and revolver as well.

TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Section 4181. Imposition of tax
There is hereby imposed upon the sale by the manufacturer,
producer, or importer of the following articles a tax equivalent to
the specified percent of the price for which so sold:
Articles taxable at 10 percent -
Pistols.
Revolvers.
Articles taxable at 11 percent -
Firearms (other than pistols and revolvers).
Shells, and cartridges.

sendec
June 14, 2004, 05:34 PM
As WildAlaska said, there is no FET on agency purchased weapons, there is on individually purchased weapons.

Once the ban sunsets, the stampings or tax status of the original owner will not matter, kinda like all the rifles/pistols/shotguns all floating around with "Property of (Insert Your Government Here) stamped or etched on them.

Graystar
June 14, 2004, 06:06 PM
Oh brother! The more I hunt around for positive information about us purchasing currently stamped Colt LEO rifles on September 14, the more I hear from others to "Forgetta bout it!" So it sounds like the general consensus is that you should be able to just walk into any gun shop on September 14th and buy it. Right?

CleverNickname
June 14, 2004, 06:51 PM
Sorry to say, but I got news for ya, pal.

Its called an Executive Order. King Bush the First used one to effectively KILL all imports of the fun stuff like AK's, FALs, etc.

Yes, you're correct there. However, the scaremongering about executive orders is a little overboard. The '89 "import ban" EO was a reinterpretation of the sporting purposes clause of the '68 GCA. The sporting purposes clause basically says that imported guns must have a sporting purpose. Congress did not define in the GCA what "sporting purpose" is, that part was left up to the executive branch to determine. So the '89 import ban was just Bush 41 ordering the ATF to redefine the rules. Also, note that the GCA import rules only apply to imported guns.

Once the AWB goes away, there won't be an AWB to reinterpret, so any executive order doing such won't have force of law. Imported firearms will still have to meet the '89 import ban rules, but domestic firearms won't, because they don't apply.

If Presidents could just make up law out of whole cloth with executive orders, Clinton would have banned a lot more than he did, don'tcha think?

Gray Peterson
June 14, 2004, 07:07 PM
Yes, Scaremongering is bad. It makes all of us look like a bunch of fools.

Bubbles
June 14, 2004, 09:13 PM
Yes, there is an excise tax on all firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment sold on the retail (I won't say civilian, since LEO's are civilians) market. Look up "Pittmann-Robertson excise tax" on your favorite search engine. The tax was supposed to be on hunters, with the money collected supporting DNR & hunting programs (especially hunter ed) throughout the country.

If you really want to blow a gasket, do some research on how these funds have been used to benefit anti-hunting and animal rights activists. Your tax dollars at work...

VaniB.
June 14, 2004, 10:45 PM
So it sounds like the general consensus is that you should be able to just walk into any gun shop on September 14th and buy it. Right?

As long as it's not a forbidden weapon in your State or City's jurisdiction. (It's not legal in Brooklyn,NYC. So you won't find it there.)

However, nobody knows for sure if the law will sunset. If it does sunset, then questions about the ATF making negative rulings remain a possibility and concern. Furthermore, Colt will continue NOT to cater to the civilian market, keeping availability of weapons with flash suppressors, bayonette lugs, and collapsable stocks away from the gun shop racks. Consider the fact that literally overnight everybody and his brother will want one of these rifles.

So the answer to your question is; Yes, you should legally be able to walk into any gun shop on Sept. 14 and buy it. But by that time, just try to find one! :(

Gray Peterson
June 14, 2004, 10:51 PM
Well, to hell with Colt. Go with Bushmaster instead! :P

In any case, I can bet that the manufacturers are just waiting in the wings to bring up production of the rifles with the formerly banned features.

Don Gwinn
June 14, 2004, 11:00 PM
The fact that somebody didn't pay an excise tax an owner or three back down the chain of possession should have no effect on your right to own a weapon which is NOT illegal to own by any statute on the books.

Lawyers, feel free to correct me on this.


If a farmer buys the lower/no tax diesel for his tractor, but I run out of diesel in front of his land and he lets me buy 10 gallons for my on-road vehicle, the worst anyone can do is demand the back taxes from him and possibly penalize him in some minor fashion, right? I'm not a criminal, because the private sale of that diesel from one individual to another is not subject to that tax. It shouldn't matter whether taxes that are not my responsibility were collected before I came on the scene.

I can't believe Colt even needs to think this over. Do they really think the antis will let up on their throats if they impose a bayonet-lug-ban on themselves? Who runs these companies?

As Lonnie says, the marketplace will correct that problem. I can think of several companies close or better, and if I can't get evil features from Colt, that makes it simple. Bushmaster, Rock River, Armalite, maybe DPMS.

Dbl0Kevin
June 14, 2004, 11:06 PM
Well, to hell with Colt. Go with Bushmaster instead! :P

Beat me to it. You couldn't pay me to buy a Colt nowadays with their uppity attitude towards legal gun ownership, not to mention way overpriced guns. Bushmaster as served me well and you can get brand new pre-ban uppers right now just waiting to go on that post ban lower after Sept. 14th.

VaniB.
June 14, 2004, 11:06 PM
Once the ban sunsets, the stampings or tax status of the original owner will not matter, kinda like all the rifles/pistols/shotguns all floating around with "Property of (Insert Your Government Here) stamped or etched on them.

That's what I was thinking and hoping too.

Man, I just don't get it. I went to the Dallas Gun Show this last weekend and spoke to a few dealers there, as well as my speaking to an LEO dealer on the phone this morning. Golly geee wiz willikers!......what a bunch of negative people that are in the gun business. (Not all....just a lot of em) I mean to tell you, that the first thing out of the majority of their mouths is all the reasons why you won't be able to buy the current LEO rifles on Sept 14. The "exempt excise tax" reason was only the latest cock and bull story that I was told on the phone this morning. Maybe it's because all these retailers want to sell you all their current post ban stock that they are stuck with, is the reason for all the gloom and doom scenerios. -I don't know what's wrong with them. But I sure like the more positive outlook I find here with all you guys on The High Road! :)

VaniB.
June 14, 2004, 11:23 PM
Kevin and Lonnie,

Well, of course it's just a matter of personal preference. I came within this close of owning one of the only 124 legal Colt 6721 Tactical Pre Bans's out there 10 years ago. I had missed the opportunity to buy it (at list price too) by a hair back then, and have wanted one ever since.

You guys want a Bushmaster? Well, I'm here to tell you that YOU ARE IN LUCK! A dealer told me that he knows for a fact that Bushmaster has been gearing up for quite some time already with a HUGE TRAIN SIZED LOAD of LEO configuration weapons to be offered to the civilian market.

Wildalaska
June 14, 2004, 11:29 PM
Who hold on a minute boys...whos got info as to what colt is gonna do IF the ban exprires...????

Hmmm??

Ill repeat what I, as a Colt LE dsitributor have been told...when the ban expries then Colt will decide what they are gonna do...

So why bad mouth them then

WildcantbeleivethebashingAlaska

Graystar
June 14, 2004, 11:30 PM
It's not legal in Brooklyn,NYC. So you won't find it there. Yeah, in fact I have to go down to cityhall and renew my license to breath :rolleyes:

VaniB.
June 15, 2004, 12:33 AM
Yeah, in fact I have to go down to cityhall and renew my license to breath

That kind of reminds me when I had to attend the indoor range with my .22 rifle once a week for a year straight to apply for my NYC pistol license. I filled out pages of documents, notarized afidavits, and waited 6 months to receive the pistol license. Then I filed for a "purchase document", and waited another 3 months for that to arrive. I THEN bought the pistol with the purchase document, and took off a day of work to bring the pistol to the Gestapo Headquarters at ONE POLICE PLAZA for "inspection".

Thank goodness the process wasn't all for a "license to breath". I do believe I might have suffocated well before I got their approval.

jimpeel
June 15, 2004, 01:01 AM
Pitman-Robertson was instituted by sportsmen for the purpose of buying conservation lands for hunting, fishing, etc. The 11% tax has purchased many millions of acres of land for sporting use -- maybe some of the land on which some here hunt and fish.

Problems arose a couple of years back when the USFWS decided they would use P-R funds for uses for which they were never intended. In other words, it seems that the USFWS was funneling P-R funds to anti-hunting organizations, paying for trips, using the monies for "administrative purposes", etc. The money was kept in an illegal slush fund for these purposes.

This was discussed at http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23553 but I don't know the outcome.

More on this:

HERE (http://wwws.house.gov/search97cgi/s97_cgi?action=View&VdkVgwKey=http%3A%2F%2Fresourcescommittee%2Ehouse%2Egov%2Farchives%2F106cong%2Ffullcomm%2F99sep29%2Fgordon%2Ehtm&DocOffset=1&DocsFound=3&QueryZip=usfws+AND+slush&SourceQueryZip=&Collection=comms&Collection=members&Collection=other&Collection=coxreport&ViewTemplate=memberview%2Ehts&), HERE (http://wwws.house.gov/search97cgi/s97_cgi?action=View&VdkVgwKey=http%3A%2F%2Fresourcescommittee%2Ehouse%2Egov%2Farchives%2F106cong%2Ffullcomm%2F99jul20%2Fgordon%2Ehtm&DocOffset=2&DocsFound=3&QueryZip=usfws+AND+slush&SourceQueryZip=&Collection=comms&Collection=members&Collection=other&Collection=coxreport&ViewTemplate=memberview%2Ehts&) and HERE (http://wwws.house.gov/search97cgi/s97_cgi?action=View&VdkVgwKey=http%3A%2F%2Fresourcescommittee%2Ehouse%2Egov%2Farchives%2F106cong%2Ffullcomm%2F99jul20%2Fbeers%2Ehtm&DocOffset=3&DocsFound=3&QueryZip=usfws+AND+slush&SourceQueryZip=&Collection=comms&Collection=members&Collection=other&Collection=coxreport&ViewTemplate=memberview%2Ehts&)

Lone_Gunman
June 15, 2004, 01:01 AM
Ill repeat what I, as a Colt LE dsitributor have been told...when the ban expries then Colt will decide what they are gonna do...


That statement is so typical of Colt's philosophy in the past that I will believe it, WildAlaska.

Colt seems to have a way of totally missing the boat in terms of marketing their products.

They fell asleep at the wheel and let Ruger and Uberti take the Cowboy style gun market.

They totally missed the Wondernine craze of the 80's, and never even marketed a usable weapon for that niche.

They let Kimber and Springfield take away the bulk of the 1911 market.


So I have no doubt Colt is going to sit on its hands and do nothing to prepare for the AWB sunset. Bushmaster and a few others will make a killing if they can get to the marketplace with their merchandise immediately after the sunset. By the time Colt decides to market AR's again, the market will be saturated and most demand already met.

Mr. Kook
June 15, 2004, 01:10 AM
Even if the postban configuration stuff isn't available right away, I'd bet you could configure your gun just about any way you wanted with the right parts.

Honestly, if i were to buy a gun this year I'd get one before or just after the sunset in pre-sunset configuration and then add on all the baubles I wanted, the telescoping stock, flash suppressor/muzzle brake, etc. might even save me some money too.

Even if the manufacturers are a little slow on the uptake it's not like we can't take care of ourselves.

jimpeel
June 15, 2004, 01:12 AM
HERE (http://wwws.house.gov/search97cgi/s97_cgi?action=View&VdkVgwKey=http%3A%2F%2Fcollinpeterson%2Ehouse%2Egov%2Fpress%2F106th%2FPR%2DDJ%5Freform%2Ehtm&DocOffset=5&DocsFound=73&QueryZip=%22pittman%2Drobertson%22&SourceQueryZip=&Collection=comms&Collection=members&Collection=other&Collection=coxreport&ViewTemplate=memberview%2Ehts&) is what they did to prevent abuse of the Pittman-Robertson funds.
H.R. 3671 improves the management of Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson funds because it:

Eliminates the $1 million "Director's Conservation" slush fund.
Eliminates three other unauthorized grant funds.
Eliminates the use of conservation trust funds to pay for general overhead for the Fish and Wildlife Service - an estimated $2 to $3 million annual savings for the Acts' state programs.
Eliminates excessive foreign and domestic travel.
Sets fixed amount of "administration" funds and phases them down over three years. This cuts bureaucracy by one-third over three years - from 148 positions to 100 positions.
Tightens authorization of what "administrative" money can be spent on.
Creates rigid auditing and reporting requirements.
Authorizes a multi-state grant program for conservation projects benefiting a majority of the states.
Creates an enhanced hunter safety and education program using savings.
Creates an assistant director who will be responsible for the conservation trust funds.

carpettbaggerr
June 15, 2004, 01:28 AM
what a bunch of negative people that are in the gun business. (Not all....just a lot of em) I mean to tell you, that the first thing out of the majority of their mouths is all the reasons why you won't be able to buy the current LEO rifles on Sept 14. You think maybe the artificially inflated prices of their current stock has something to do with it? :scrutiny:


"No, no, you won't be able to buy the exact same rifle much cheaper in just a few months. Buy this one now. Yeah. That's the ticket."

Wildalaska
June 15, 2004, 01:34 AM
Colt seems to have a way of totally missing the boat in terms of marketing their products.

Yeah thats why I cant keep a Colt 1911 in stock, and thats why they sell every one they can turn out (with a waiting list) without gun rag whores or advertisements...

Wildandtrytogetanar15rightnowAlaska

dustind
June 15, 2004, 03:20 AM
the worst anyone can do is demand the back taxes from him and possibly penalize him in some minor fashion, right? I'm not a criminal, because the private sale of that diesel from one individual to another is not subject to that tax. It shouldn't matter whether taxes that are not my responsibility were collected before I came on the scene. I have heard that the penalty is pretty steep. They use a special dye in off road desiel FYI.

As far as only being able to demand the back taxes. I do not think it ever works like that. If it did we could saftley own machine guns and short barrelled toys with only a one time $200 tax to worry about if caught.

BigG
June 15, 2004, 07:55 AM
:eek: Gee - that means all those old military 1911A1s and such are illegal to own too - United States Property! :eek:

:rolleyes:

BigG
June 15, 2004, 07:57 AM
Colt seems to have a way of totally missing the boat in terms of marketing their products. Gee. Thanks for telling me. They pretty much got my needs sewn up. AR15s and 45 Automatics. Life is good!

tcsd1236
June 16, 2004, 08:12 PM
they were exempt from the 11% excise tax. Therefore, I was told that these stamped rifles will still be bound by the rules and red tape that they were manufactured under, and will remain transferable only to Law Enforcement individuals even after the Law's Sunset.
Law enforcement tax exempt agency-purchased handguns that were bought by those agencies are routinely later sold by the agencies on the open market. Don't know why the tax status of the weapon when it was new matters for resale. Since all law enforcement equipment was purchased tax exempt, using that theory, none of it is resaleable.

Lone_Gunman
June 16, 2004, 11:19 PM
Yeah thats why I cant keep a Colt 1911 in stock, and thats why they sell every one they can turn out (with a waiting list) without gun rag whores or advertisements


Wild, I agree there are tons of die-hard Colt fans out there, I am one of them, and I will continue to buy Colt products.

What I mean, though, is that Colt has missed many opportunities to market products and has let the competition take away a lot of their business. I think it has consistently been a poorly run company from a management standpoint. Their products themselves are top notch, and will always have a market. The fact that you as a retailer can't keep Colt products in stock is a sign of a poorly run busines... Every time someone comes in looking for a Colt, can't find one, and buys a Springfield or, God forbid, a Kimber, that's money Colt could have made but didn't.


I think there is going to be a big demand for post-post ban rifles if the AWB expires, but this demand isn't going to be infinite. There are not that many people out there who want to buy AR style rifles compared to other things. If Bushmaster gets their product to market first, then all Colt is going to get is the leftovers.

VaniB.
June 18, 2004, 10:05 AM
Padon me guys, while I get off the topic a moment, and report about what I learned from my brief phone call to the local BATF office. (concerning the status of stamped LEO rifles after the ban):

The gentleman on the phone told me that the agents were discussing the topic amongst themselves, and are not certain at this time what will be ruled. He advised that I should call back about a week or so before the sunset, when a ruling will have been established. It was in his opinion however, that the stamped LEO rifles will be legal for civilians to own. He reasoned that the only purpose for the weapons having been stamped to begin with, was that they had the collapsable stock, bayonette lug, and flash suppressor which the AWB forbid. He said if these features become legal for civilians to own upon the sunset, then the LEO rifles will thus be legal for us to own.

Of course, just because this makes sence to us, doesn't mean that his superiors will rule accordingly. Perhaps they will find some other gray area or interpretation for keeping the LEO weapons as forbidden. That cock and bull story that a distributor told me concerning excise tax for example, was a really imaginative angle and basis for not being able to own the weapons. I would have never thought up that tale myself. I wouldn't doubt if left to the BATF, they might think up the same thing or a similiar creative excuse. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Thank you for your time. You may now get back on the topic of Pochahontas, and the pink bus.
:D

Friday PM (edited): Man, am I going nuts? What happened to all the silly postings on this thread about Pochahontas and pink busses some of you guys posted as you got off topic?? They're gone! It couldn't have been another thread that I was on, because I was reading all the silly posts and then clicked on the bottom of this same thread to add this reply :confused:

If you enjoyed reading about "LEO weapons to stay banned due to excise tax!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!