I never realized how nefarious the $200 tax stamp was.

[Warp]

If Hillary wins, she will appoint Bloomberg to run the ATF and appoint Feinstein as Attorney General and they will pass these taxes into law.
.

I guess you missed the part where Congress would have to be the ones to do that...or the part where they tried everything they could in early 2013 and failed miserably.

 

[Walkalong]

Indeed, not that some of our friends in Washington wouldn't love to do it though. We must always keep an eye on those rascals.

 

[243winxb]

Tax Stamp & Price of M16A1

Compared to the gun price, the stamp was still a lot in 1979. Sold M16 a while ago. www.photobucket.com/M16A1

 

[Ryanxia]

If I missed it, there was a push to up the NFA tax stamp to $500 I believe last year or the year before. They were citing the fact that it takes them so long to turn applications around as proof that they were so overwhelmed and needed more manpower or some such BS.

 

[plodder]

The $200 tax is the cheap part. Buying a pre 86 registered MG is the $$$ part.

No, the $$$ part is the 4 or 5 additional stamps that will inevitably follow the first!

 

[Jim K]

"If Congress won't act, then I will have to." Didn't someone say something like that?

It has been so long since we had a king that we have forgotten why we didn't want one.

Jim

 

[Ironman]

Also just incase some of you don't know. The $200 goes to the national treasury, not the BATFE.

 

[joshk1025]

It's interesting that the NFA is written as a tax, because Congress at the time acknowledged that that was what their powers were limited to. Then 50 years later they passed the Hughes amendment, which doesn't have that grounding, and people haven't challenged their power to do so.

 

[Midwest]

It's interesting that the NFA is written as a tax, because Congress at the time acknowledged that that was what their powers were limited to. Then 50 years later they passed the Hughes amendment, which doesn't have that grounding, and people haven't challenged their power to do so.

True that the NFA was written as a tax. (Or better described as a special category of firearms that requires a special tax.) Then what changed? How was the Hughes Amendment able to pass legal scrutiny in the first place if the NFA is really about a special category of firearms that requires a special tax? I didn't understand why the Hughes amendment wasn't challenged on that basis in the first few years..or was it?
.

 

[TRX]

I got my first NFA in 1983, and I was making about $375/mo. That $200 still hurt.

 

[Nickel Plated]

Who knows what that price tag might be if those items were sold openly and legally on the market today.

Those guns would cost exactly the same as their semi-only counterparts. When you get down to it, there's nothing in the select-fire gun itself that makes it cost any more. 2 or 3 extra parts that would add at most $10 to the price tag. It's the fact that they haven't made any new ones since 1986 and the existing supply is only getting smaller that drives the price up.

Infact if the NFA were repealed, I doubt most manufacturers would even bother making semi-only guns anymore except for the few states that would undoubtedly keep a version of the law on their books. I mean why buy a gun that can shoot ONLY semi-auto when you can buy one that gives you the best of both worlds at the same price?

 

[MikieG]

Part of the 200dollar legislation says that the tax cannot go up. Any and all firearm legislation is illegal as per our constitution and anyone proposing such anti constitutional legislation is to be charged with treason and punished as such. Most rights are understood. The right to bear arms was considered so important that it was expressly written about thereby protecting it.
If you took these laws back in time with their proposers, there would have been treason hangings.
The idea is to eventually make the American people slaves thru taxation and the lack of defense against the masters.

 

[Jim K]

The real reason was that FDR and his minions were scared of a revolution. The gangster era was the excuse, not the reason. They knew what happens to leaders after a revolution, and the idea of revolution was in the air after the depression and access to power by Hitler, Mussolini and other revolutionaries. For all FDR's claim of supporting the common man, he was a child of wealth, and he had no intention of keeping company thugs and state enforcers from getting all the guns they wanted; but he wanted to disarm that "common man" he claimed to love so much, and who really terrified him.

There is already a drumbeat of rising hysteria about Jihadists in our midst, and a lot of it is coming from the same old gun control gang that worked up scares over guns in the hands of blacks, Mafia hit men, female assassins, radical "Commies", right-wing extremists, etc. No matter what the threat, real or invented, the answer from the anti-gun gangsters is always the same - ban guns. They are even using "climate change" to promote gun control, claiming that "coming outbreaks of violence over dwindling food supplies" justify the "need" to ban guns, except, of course, for the police and military.

Jim

 

[AlexanderA]

Any and all firearm legislation is illegal as per our constitution and anyone proposing such anti constitutional legislation is to be charged with treason and punished as such. Most rights are understood. The right to bear arms was considered so important that it was expressly written about thereby protecting it.
If you took these laws back in time with their proposers, there would have been treason hangings.
The idea is to eventually make the American people slaves thru taxation and the lack of defense against the masters.

Please. Let's not get carried away with overblown rhetoric. The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is, and the latest pronouncements on guns by the Supreme Court (Heller, etc.) say that "reasonable restrictions" (especially on things like machine guns) are OK. The questions that remain to be resolved are the exact boundaries of those "reasonable restrictions."

Besides that, "treason" is defined in the Constitution as consisting only in levying war against the United States, or in giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Political acts (such as advocating for gun control) are specifically not included in treason. (Otherwise, we'd have political witch hunts that would tear the country apart.)

 

[Theohazard]

Part of the 200dollar legislation says that the tax cannot go up. Any and all firearm legislation is illegal as per our constitution and anyone proposing such anti constitutional legislation is to be charged with treason and punished as such. Most rights are understood. The right to bear arms was considered so important that it was expressly written about thereby protecting it.
If you took these laws back in time with their proposers, there would have been treason hangings.
The idea is to eventually make the American people slaves thru taxation and the lack of defense against the masters.

I'm with AlexanderA on this. Uninformed statements like this one just show that you don't understand how the constitution works. Besides, over-the-top extremist political rhetoric like this just makes gun owners look like ignorant conspiracy theorists, and it sure won't help bring people in the middle to our side.

Any and all firearm legislation is illegal as per our constitution

MikieG, I suggest you read this sticky about the Constitution.