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

Silencer/suppressor Tax?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by SwampFox, Aug 11, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SwampFox

    SwampFox Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    117
    Location:
    Missouri
    Rumor has it that silencers may be removed from weapon status and no longer require the $200.00 transfer tax.

    Does anyone have a reference for this? I can't find anything on the net.
     
  2. Kharn

    Kharn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,999
    Location:
    Maryland
    Anyone can dream, but I havent heard of any bills moving in the House or Senate that would accomplish that.

    Kharn
     
  3. dalepres

    dalepres Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    Messages:
    467
    And then you woke up? :D
     
  4. SwampFox

    SwampFox Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    117
    Location:
    Missouri
    Supposedly it was pushed by OSHA for safety/heariing reasons. Written but not yet voted on.

    IT is starting to look like BS.
     
  5. bigjohnson

    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.
     
  6. El Tejon

    El Tejon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    18,083
    Location:
    Lafayette, Indiana-the Ned Flanders neighbor to Il
    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!:D

    Hey, don't call my work BS, what are you, one of my ex-girlfriends?:D
     
  7. FourTeeFive

    FourTeeFive Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,077
    Location:
    PNW WA
    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...
     
  8. SwampFox

    SwampFox Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    117
    Location:
    Missouri
    What I'm gleaning is that there is no law presently under consideration.

    I always thought the idea that a hired killer would abide by the suppressor ban was absurd.

    Thanks for your responses.
     
  9. Prince Yamato

    Prince Yamato Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Location:
    Texas
    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.
     
  10. ServiceSoon

    ServiceSoon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,404
    Location:
    Michiana
    Evidence?
     
  11. bigjohnson

    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2008
  12. dalepres

    dalepres Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    Messages:
    467
    Roosevelt would love today's congress. He'd have gotten what he wanted for sure.
     
  13. FourTeeFive

    FourTeeFive Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,077
    Location:
    PNW WA
    So in 1934 the tax stamp was $200? That was a lot of cash back then!
     
  14. ScottsGT

    ScottsGT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    1,987
    Location:
    Columbia, SC
    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!
     
  15. El Tejon

    El Tejon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    18,083
    Location:
    Lafayette, Indiana-the Ned Flanders neighbor to Il
    Why give it up? Why not just leave the bolt out of it???:confused:
     
  16. ScottsGT

    ScottsGT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    1,987
    Location:
    Columbia, SC
    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?
     
  17. Kharn

    Kharn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,999
    Location:
    Maryland
    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
     
  18. Thernlund

    Thernlund Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Messages:
    2,347
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Ok folks... who's up for a class action?

    Will the next Dick Heller please stand up.


    -T.
     
  19. Voerelover

    Voerelover Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    Messages:
    20
    They will remove suppressors from nfa tax when pigs fly!
     
  20. DoubleTapDrew

    DoubleTapDrew Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2006
    Messages:
    5,356
    Location:
    Oregon
    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.
     
  21. Gunnerpalace

    Gunnerpalace Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,092
    Location:
    Somewhere in Michigan
    Somebody tell me when was the last time you heard of a "Hollywood" style killing with a silencer.
     
  22. Thernlund

    Thernlund Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Messages:
    2,347
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Ummm... I think that's kind of the point of a "silencer". So nobody will "hear" about it.


    -T.
     
  23. Conqueror

    Conqueror Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2007
    Messages:
    966
    Location:
    RTP, NC
    That is not correct. Any suppressor, be it integral or removable, is $200. Any full-auto is $200. MP5SDs are two-stamp guns.
     
  24. El Tejon

    El Tejon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    18,083
    Location:
    Lafayette, Indiana-the Ned Flanders neighbor to Il
    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?:confused:
     
  25. mp510

    mp510 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2006
    Messages:
    3,045
    Location:
    PRKt
    There is an ATF letter from the '70s that says that a machinegun with an integral silencer permenantly attached to the reciever is a one-stamp gun.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page