A Letter to Ron Paul about reopening the Machinegun registry.

[Sam1911]

The original $200 tax was equivalent to about $3200 in today's money.

Indeed, and in 1934, when folks were in even worse financial condition than they are today.

It WAS a tax to keep the poorer class "undesirables" from buying machine guns.

We are very fortunate to have seen that dollar amount hold steady until that is no longer (as) true.

I'm not sure we should get behind another classist/racist/whatever-ist tax scheme on guns.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Didn't Al Capone have a standing offer of $3,000 (in 1920s dollars; adjusted for inflation about 35,000 to 40,000) for Thompson guns, no questions asked, when the MSRP was $200?

For today. Since the registry was closed in 19 May 1986, machinegun collection has been taken over by doctors, lawyers, and other rich people driving the prices out of the reach of ordinary military history buffs. In 1985, I could have gotten a Reising M50 for $150. The last time I checked the price has been inflated to $3,200. Maybe we should recruit the Occupy Wall Street crowd to our side: present opening the NFA registry to new or imported MGs as a 99% cause against the 1%.

 

[MtnCreek]

Doctors, Lawyers and such (was that a song? ) didn't drive up the cost, the US Gov did by limiting supply. The quantity of transferable MG's is set, so the values of those transferable MG's continue to rise. That said, I would like to be a fly on the wall when you explain the plan to the occupy crowd (I'd probably be one of many flies in that room..).

 

[mboylan]

A $2000 machine gun tax on top of a $200 transfer tax is a much more reasonable proposal. Anyone who thinks our government will allow it's citizens to own cheap new machine guns with only a $200 tax is living in fantasy land. All machine guns would be much cheaper. I'm guessing that my Lage Max-11 would cost exactly what I paid for it and I'm into full-auto for as cheap as it gets. That's assuming the base price of an M11/9 fell to $800.

If you can't afford to spend $2000 on top of $1200 for an M16, you can't afford to run one anyway. It's a hell of alot better than spending $15,000 on an M16A1.

 

[mboylan]

In an ideal world you could walk into a gun shop and walk out with a machine gun. In the real world that is just not going to happen. Opening the registry with a small $200 tax is not going to happen either.

We have to be realistic and at the same time, we also have to improve upon a situation where we have about 183,000 and falling, 26+ year old transferable machine guns.

 

[Sam1911]

A $2000 machine gun tax on top of a $200 transfer tax is a much more reasonable proposal. Anyone who thinks our government will allow it's citizens to own cheap new machine guns with only a $200 tax is living in fantasy land.

Seeing as there is no great apparent enthusiasm on "the government's" part to allow its citizens to own new machine guns PERIOD -- I'm not sure that the dollar value of the tax would really compel the government to allow it either way.

Considering the microscopically "small potatoes" involved (from the government's perspective) in a few thousand individuals wanting to pay a $200 or $2,000 tax -- I honestly can't imagine this would even be a blip on lawmakers' radar one way or the other.

Kind of like saying I'd never allow someone to kick me in the shins for a penny. But if they offer a dime, well...now we're talking!

 

[Jim NE]

Gun rights are only part of the reason RP is a good candidate.

As far as restrictions/fees on fully automatic weapons, I agree with most of the sentiments expressed here. However, I believe it isn't so much fear of crime, but fear of a populace (who might acheive firearms parity with the government) that has many people on the other side concerned.

You see, while many of us believe that an ever growing and ever intrusive government isn't to be trusted, there are many people in the world who believe that it's free thinking citizens who aren't to be trusted.

They believe that only government can "protect us from ourselves."

 

[Black Butte]

"Liberty-loving" is hyphenated, and you need commas after "also" and "furthermore" where those words begin sentences.

 

[mboylan]

I would love the value of my M11/9 receiver to go from $3200 down to $400 if I could pick up an M16 for less than $3500. Compensating machine gun owners for their losses isn't even a consideration.

The issue is that the government does not want it's citizens to have access to machine guns. The government will certainly never consider giving access to cheap readily accessible machine guns. That was the point of the NFA to begin with.

I am just proposing that we go back close to the original NFA rather than a complete ban.

 

[Sambo82]

I wouldn't advocate for a second raising the NFA fee. I mean what would stop the ATF from applying the fee to every NFA item in that case, from SBR's to suppressors? Also a $2,000 fee would put machine guns out of the range of alot of the average Joes. I for example own a parts kit built ar15 (around $750) and could probably afford the tax stamp and FA parts, but $2800 for a rifle is too steep for me.

So why should a honest, hardworking, tax paying citizen be denied such a weapon simply because he doesn't have a large amount of disposable income? Seems really unAmerican to me...

 

[45bthompson]

Taxes are bad! It seems like an easy concept for me. When I pay that $200 I'm a little pissed that it SHOULD have gone towards ammo. The $5 AOW tax is easier to swallow considering it prolly costs more that to process my paperwork but then again hasn't that already been paid out of my federal income tax? Come to think of it all taxes piss me off. Do not suggest any new taxes lightly. The monster grows only as long as you feed it.

 

[mboylan]

I wouldn't advocate for a second raising the NFA fee. I mean what would stop the ATF from applying the fee to every NFA item in that case, from SBR's to suppressors? Also a $2,000 fee would put machine guns out of the range of alot of the average Joes. I for example own a parts kit built ar15 (around $750) and could probably afford the tax stamp and FA parts, but $2800 for a rifle is too steep for me.

So why should a honest, hardworking, tax paying citizen be denied such a weapon simply because he doesn't have a large amount of disposable income? Seems really unAmerican to me...

I was advocating a separate machine gun tax in addition to the NFA transfer tax in exchange for opening up the registry that has been closed for 26 years. The NFA transfer tax would remain the same.

SBRs, AOWs and suppressors would not be affected.

There is absolutely no way US citizens will be allowed to own post-86 machine guns with only a $200 transfer tax. It won't happen. Running a machine gun is also completely unaffordable to the average Joe. Back in the day people got rid of them because they could not afford to shoot and maintain them.

We still need to find some way to reopen the registry.

 

[Bubbles]

I was advocating a separate machine gun tax in addition to the NFA transfer tax in exchange for opening up the registry that has been closed for 26 years. The NFA transfer tax would remain the same.

So, who would end up paying the tax, the manufacturer, or the first non-SOT/non-gov't agency transferee?

 

[AlexanderA]

As I understand the proposal by some here, the $200 transfer tax would remain the same, but there would be an additional $2,000 or $5,000 manufacturers' excise tax on new machine guns (or post-1986 sample guns converted to transferables). This would have the effect of (a) opening the registry, while (b) supporting the current market. Both current and aspiring owners should be happy with this, since it's better than the current situation and nobody loses too much financially. I think it's an idea worth exploring.

 

[Sam1911]

I've yet to see how adding (to the government's eyes anyway) a chump change tax to this is going to make it palatable. $2,000 per isn't going to cause any legislator's eyes to light up. So the gov't might take in a milliion or two a year? So what? That's like the FBI's yearly budget for those little plastic coffee stirrers.

In 1934 the tax was set to keep poor folks from taking advantage of this. These days no lawmaker is going to be so blatant as to get behind a "no po' folks" tax.

They won't even discuss opening the registry until/unless forced, and money isn't going to come into it.

 

[Brockak47]

It would be sort of cool to have the registry opened. Though to be honest, I like it how it is. It wouldn't be as neat to own a MG if EVERYONE had one. then it would be like any other gun.

The only thing I wish they did was make suppressors more easily available so everyone would use them at the range, would be rrreeeaallllyy nice

 

[Sam1911]

Though to be honest, I like it how it is. It wouldn't be as neat to own a MG if EVERYONE had one. then it would be like any other gun.

Please say that was sarcasm. You like that other people can't have the same gun you have because it makes you/yours special?

 

[Walther P99]

It would be sort of cool to have the registry opened. Though to be honest, I like it how it is. It wouldn't be as neat to own a MG if EVERYONE had one. then it would be like any other gun.

The only thing I wish they did was make suppressors more easily available so everyone would use them at the range, would be rrreeeaallllyy nice

These are the people who would complain about losing too much money if the mg registry was re-opened.

 

[Prince Yamato]

I dislike the $200 tax, but I tolerate it. $2000 tax... man, I'd go bananas.

 

[Swing]

In 1985, I could have gotten a Reising M50 for $150. The last time I checked the price has been inflated to $3,200.

I've actually seen them go for a bit more than that these days. I recall a time when they didn't garner much interest in the NFA market.

 

[AlexanderA]

I dislike the $200 tax, but I tolerate it. $2000 tax... man, I'd go bananas.

The $2,000 excise tax (or whatever amount) being proposed here would apply only to machine guns that are currently unavailable due to the Hughes Amendment. It would be imposed at the manufacturer level and the purpose would be as a "sweetener" for opening up the registry, as well as preventing the market from dropping out on existing guns. I'd be for simply opening up the registry, but there are many current owners that would take huge losses if that were to happen. We need to maximize the political forces that are in favor of opening the registry. The excise tax could be phased out as the market stabilized, and it would be easier to do so than to change the underlying prohibition.

 

[Sam1911]

"Sweetener" for WHO? WHO are we trying to appease here? The government? I still don't think any aspect of the government is going to be impressed, in the VERY least, by an indiscernible income bump caused by a tax like this.

Or is this in some way to appease machine gun collectors who, we're theorizing, would oppose opening the registry to -- absurdly selfishly -- "protect" their investment. If so, what's the point? Is adding a $2,000 per-new-gun tax going to get them on-board? And if so, so what? What power do they wield that is going to help or hurt "us" in this effort in any significant way?

 

[Sambo82]

Man Sam, your posts make me wish there was a "like" button.

 

[Sam1911]

Well, thanks, but I'm really trying to cut to the logic here. Someone is proposing that if 'we' agree to a one-time tax of $2,000 per gun, that would be compelling to some portion of "the powers that be," helping convince them to open the MG registry.

I cannot see WHO this minuscule tax is really going to impress -- a few million in additional tax revenue isn't going to sway Congress to do anything, let alone something so radical -- so it seems there must be some other angle being played.

Is that other angle in trying to get more "heavy hitters" (i.e. rich machine gun collectors) to go to bat for us common folks and bring their money or influence to bear on Congress to reopen the registry? If so...are there really any/enough of these "heavy hitters" out there who wield that kind of influence? Really? These folks exist, and have this power? And haven't deigned to use it yet? And if so, is a $2,000 per-gun tax really going to change the game for them so they suddenly decide to bring their hidden powers of influence to bear?

I just haven't seen yet how this is a strategy.

 

[Owen Sparks]

The sum of $200 was chosen because that was the price of a new Thompson gun at the time so the tax basically doubled the price.

What do you think would be a fair $ amount for a transfer tax on Bibles?