1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

LEO weapons to stay banned due to excise tax!

Discussion in 'Legal' started by VaniB., Jun 14, 2004.

  1. VaniB.

    VaniB. member

    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!
  2. GigaBuist

    GigaBuist Well-Known Member

    There's an 11% excise tax on firearms for civilian sale?!


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

    Ukraine Train Well-Known Member

    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?
  4. Wildalaska

    Wildalaska member

    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.

  5. Gray Peterson

    Gray Peterson Well-Known Member

    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.
  6. G1FAL

    G1FAL Well-Known Member

    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.
  7. Jeff White

    Jeff White Moderator Staff Member

    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.

  8. TallPine

    TallPine Well-Known Member

    The excise tax is Pittman-Roberts which goes (or is supposed to go) to wildlife agencies, isn't that correct .....?
  9. Graystar

    Graystar Well-Known Member

    And a 10% excise tax on every pistol and revolver as well.

    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 -
    Articles taxable at 11 percent -
    Firearms (other than pistols and revolvers).
    Shells, and cartridges.
  10. sendec

    sendec member

    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.
  11. Graystar

    Graystar Well-Known Member

    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?
  12. CleverNickname

    CleverNickname Well-Known Member

    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?
  13. Gray Peterson

    Gray Peterson Well-Known Member

    Yes, Scaremongering is bad. It makes all of us look like a bunch of fools.
  14. Bubbles

    Bubbles Well-Known Member

    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...
  15. VaniB.

    VaniB. member

    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! :(
  16. Gray Peterson

    Gray Peterson Well-Known Member

    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.
  17. Don Gwinn

    Don Gwinn Moderator Emeritus

    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.
  18. Dbl0Kevin

    Dbl0Kevin Well-Known Member

    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.
  19. VaniB.

    VaniB. member

    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! :)
  20. VaniB.

    VaniB. member

    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.

Share This Page