Silencer/suppressor Tax?
- Thread starter SwampFox
- Start date
- Status
bigjohnson
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2008
- Messages
- 174
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
Member
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
Wow, the Rumor Mill has transmorgified my proposals from 20 years ago to having the power of the federal government behind them!
Hey, don't call my work BS, what are you, one of my ex-girlfriends?
FourTeeFive
Member
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...
Then again, I'm trying to make sense out of the government...
Prince Yamato
Member
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
Member
Evidence?
bigjohnson
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2008
- Messages
- 174
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.
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.
Last edited:
FourTeeFive
Member
So in 1934 the tax stamp was $200? That was a lot of cash back then!
ScottsGT
Member
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
Member
Why give it up? Why not just leave the bolt out of it???
ScottsGT
Member
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?
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
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
Member
FourTeeFive said:
Ok folks... who's up for a class action?
Will the next Dick Heller please stand up.
-T.
Voerelover
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2006
- Messages
- 20
They will remove suppressors from nfa tax when pigs fly!
DoubleTapDrew
Member
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.
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
Member
Somebody tell me when was the last time you heard of a "Hollywood" style killing with a silencer.
Thernlund
Member
Ummm... I think that's kind of the point of a "silencer". So nobody will "hear" about it.
-T.
-T.
El Tejon
Member
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?
- Status
Similar threads
