Quantcast

Taking Down The NFA From The Inside...

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Still 2 Many Choices!?, Jan 12, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Still 2 Many Choices!?

    Still 2 Many Choices!? Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2006
    Messages:
    455
    I would like to hear opinions on the idea of taking down the ,"regulatory scheme", that is the NFA, by using it's very founding principals against it. Since it is based on a tax, and all subsiquent modifers to the 1934 law are still centered around the tax basis(read as: legal because of the tax nexus), attacking the tax nexus seems to be the most logical way to get rid of the NFA. What I am thinking, is some form of tax limitation law that would not allow government to unfairly tax an item. You know, the all too often seen ,"Sin", tax associated with items the government doesn't want you to use, yet could never get a Constitutional Ammendment to actually regulate or control. The NFA could be seen as unfair taxation, which we all know lead to the American Revolution. So a law limiting the amount that the Congress/government may tax an item to no more than 1/10 the items retail cost would destroy the NFA from it's originally flawed design. Since a 200 tax on an item that would retail for 1000's is obviously too great of a tax, and actually used to justify limiting it's use/availability, this would fall under the ,"Sin Tax", category, same as the increase on cigarettes and alcohol. The NFA would be nullified as being excessive in nature, to the point of an illegal attempt at a ban, making all of the FOPA's and GCA act modifications void... What do you guys think?
    What do you guys think? Is my logic flawed or sound?

    Still 2 Many Choices!?
     
  2. DoubleTapDrew

    DoubleTapDrew Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2006
    Messages:
    5,356
    Location:
    Oregon
    It sounds plausible but adjusting the transfer amount wouldn't make much of a difference IMO. $200 is insignificant when spending $15,000 on a gun (although it would be more significant for suppressors or SBR/SBS).
    I'm sure most pre-86 and especially C&R-age guns have been transferred enough times that the orig. value pales in comparison to the taxes collected from it. Thompson's cost $200 back in their day (which was a lot then).
    If we could get rid of the registry closure in 86 I'd be a happy camper.
     
  3. Mongo the Mutterer

    Mongo the Mutterer Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,242
    Location:
    St. Louis
    The reason the "sin" taxes exist is the fact that the majority of the people don't care about them, and aren't effected by them.

    "I don't smoke, so why should I care', etc.

    Keep in mind that we have taxes which have lived far, far beyond their initial intents. We have a Federal excise tax on tires. Why? Because tires were a luxury item during World War II. The American People have paid millions of dollars since 1945 as a result of this tax, and don't know (or care) about it.

    The same goes for the tax which is put on my CELL phone bill in Missouri, so the pitiful poor can have CELL phones... More crap.

    If the American People realized just how much has been and continues to be stolen from them in taxes, there would be a revolution. The propagandists in the Socialist Mainstream Media will never allow the facts to come out about any taxes, because the taxes support their programs.

    Wait until you see the taxes you will pay (indirectly most likely) to the UN for things like, oh, internet usage, within a few years if the Democraps continue in power. That is their dream. Unelected and unaccountable socialist bureaucrats using your tax dollars to fund their elitist programs. Get used to it, it is on the way.
     
  4. crunker

    crunker member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    349
    I'm more intrested in repealing the ****ing machinegun ban.
     
  5. Still 2 Many Choices!?

    Still 2 Many Choices!? Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2006
    Messages:
    455
    If my idea passed tomorrow...

    It WOULD GET RID OF THE NFA(until it could be adjusted), and the BATFE would have nothing to do with applications for MG, DD, and whatever. I don't know how long it would take the people on the Capitol to figure that out, but in the interim, BATFE WOULD BE NULLIFIED AS FAR AS APPLICATIONS GO... There would be no difference between TITLE I and TITLE II Firearms:) .
     
  6. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    As For The NFA,

    I don't care under whatever guise Congress passed it, it is still an infringement upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and, therefore, in violation of the Second Amendment. Attack it that way, then no matter how Congress attempts to pass more law against it, the infringement aspect sticks out like a sore thumb. Taxing something infringes upon it. Prohibiting the sale of a class of arms to the people infringes upon the right.

    Removing the taxation of NFA items does not reach the underlying usurpation of power and disobedience to the Second Amendment perpetrated by Congress when the NFA was passed, and even the disobedience of Congress of today as long as the current Congress allows it to stand.

    Woody

    You all need to remember where the real middle is. It is the Constitution. The Constitution is the biggest compromise - the best compromise - ever written. It is where distribution of power and security of the common good meets with the protection of rights, freedom, and personal sovereignty. B.E.Wood
     
  7. Outlander1

    Outlander1 member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    23
    Location:
    Wyfriggenoming
    Every build an off paper MG , show up to the range 100 at a time . Piss on'em .
     
  8. Caimlas

    Caimlas Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,689
    Location:
    SD
    Well, it's a nice pie-in-the-sky idea, but... how would you go about getting such a change passed? You're talking about the government here; they don't want us to own guns at all at this point, nevermind NFA items. And, even if you did such a thing, you'd still have that $100 tax on a $1000 item - which, while not back-breaking, is by no means unsubstantial.
     
  9. illspirit

    illspirit Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2007
    Messages:
    289
    Location:
    Virginia
    Personally, I think the best way to defeat the NFA would be to have it apply "fairly" across other freedoms in the BOR. We all know how the antis love to say things like "but the militias back then didn't have rapid-fire guns." And pretty much every 2A activist has countered that with the rhetorical "but the press didn't have rapid-fire internet publishing" and such. What if instead of rhetoric, we actually had laws like that written?

    What if, say, personal computers had to be registered/taxed like a machine-gun, internet connections like a suppressor (this isn't far from the McCain-Feingold Act, come to think of it...), and web servers in a class like destructive devices? The hypocritical ACLU supporting antis would go bonkers. But, hey, how can they argue against a law based on their own reasoning? :neener:

    Okay, so, err, it wouldn't be the "best way," as it's really rather nihilistic. But perhaps it could wake up the sheeple as to just how every right's fate is intertwined and interchangeable. Not to mention show them how dangerous government can be once it starts picking and choosing rights. In other words, have the govt. turn up the heat on the water and cause more frogs to jump out. Or, force them to choose between all or nothing when it comes to freedom.

    Then again, new Congress might do all this on their own. What, with Pelosi trying to force registration of personal blogs, and Clinton and Lieberman trying to ban and censor interactive digital media (up to, and including Christian video-games which the Kossites refer to as dangerous religious brainwashing).
     
  10. DoubleTapDrew

    DoubleTapDrew Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2006
    Messages:
    5,356
    Location:
    Oregon
    Wonder if it would be possible to get rid of the whole "sporting" idea that started the 1968 crap. The 2A has NOTHING WHATSOEVER with sporting purposes. Wasn't Miller vs. US about him in trouble because his weapon was not a military type weapon, yet they now don't want us to own military type weapons?
    They took an eraser to that "shall not be infringed" part. Taxing is infringing. Banning is infringing.
     
  11. DoubleTapDrew

    DoubleTapDrew Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2006
    Messages:
    5,356
    Location:
    Oregon
    Haha, that would be awesome! Words not registered prior to the 2007 amnesty may not be used and once they are used in conversation are subject to $200 tax, full background check, CLEO signoff, and BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Freedom) approval.
     
  12. musher

    musher Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2003
    Messages:
    586
    Location:
    Fairbanks, AK
    I guess I'm a big dummy, but it sounds like you're proposing to increase the tax on NFA items that cost over 2000.
     
  13. DKSuddeth

    DKSuddeth Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2006
    Messages:
    777
    Location:
    Bedford, TX
    while it's a pleasant thought to do away with the NFA, it will never happen while we have republicans and democrats running the show. There are way too many soccer moms and college liberals out there who have more trust in the government than they do their fellow americans. The 70 million some hunters who don't care because it doesnt affect their rifles and shotguns are going to be in for a rude awakening when they are banned as well.
     
  14. nobody_special

    nobody_special member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Messages:
    393
    Location:
    NM
    A $200 tax on items which cost >$1000 is really not a big deal. The tax isn't the issue.

    The problems are, (1) they won't accept the tax for post-1986 weapons (Huh? A government levies a tax, but then won't accept it? - indeed, I believe this argument was successfully used to overturn the NFA in this specific case for the 5th Circuit court. But someone should check me on that.)

    (2) The government requires more than just a tax; they require you to sign away your rights when you obtain an NFA firearm. BATFE can search your premises without a warrant. Why they can do that under tax law is beyond me.
     
  15. DKSuddeth

    DKSuddeth Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2006
    Messages:
    777
    Location:
    Bedford, TX
    what i'm not understanding (well, i do but it's too horrific to deal with) is how in 1934, a tax was required for certain weapons that were guaranteed as a right to own, but then Murdock v. Pennsylvania case of 1943 determined that "A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution."

    Right now there are so many facets for decisions legitimizing gun laws so as not to ever HAVE to rule them unconsitutional that it's disheartening. Look at the fincher case. They said they wanted a well regulated militia, well they got one but then refused to let the jury hear arguments on the law stating that it wasn't a state recognized militia.
     
  16. Ian

    Ian Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,857
    Yep, that's the most vulnerable legal flaw in the NFA. They can't levy a tax, and then refuse to collect it.

    However, the thing to remember about challenging gun laws is that THE LAW DOESN'T MATTER. No matter how correct and logical your challenge is, the courts and judges will twist the law and/or the procedures to make you lose.

    They will redefine terms, bar testimony, reinterpret law, seize your assets, freeze your bank accounts, and stack juries. They will do this for exactly the same reason you would make the challenge in the first place - if they don't, the whole gun control infrastructure will crumble.

    The game is rigged. If you try to fight it, it will destroy you.
     
  17. crunker

    crunker member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    349
    I don't think an outright repeal of the NFA is smart, I mean I don't want my neighbor's kids going around and buying TOWs and artillery.

    What we need to do is take out restrictions on machineguns, SBSs, SBRs, and some AOWs. What needs to still be regulated are grenades, RPGs, missiles and missile launchers, rockets and rocket launchers, and weapons that can't be detected by metal detectors. Even then, requirements to own those weapons should be minimal and have little hassle involved.
     
  18. Juna

    Juna Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    980
    Sad, but true.

    Sad and NOT true. This notion of, "we can't win, so why fight?" is exactly what the anti-gun lobby wants us to believe. Sure, it's a daunting task, and it's very hard to undo legislature. However, if we stop being active in the fight, what's to stop them from an outright ban? They're gunning for one constantly, and all that stops it is the vigilance of those of us who fight.

    OK, I can maybe understand explosives (things that throw shrapnel in uncontrolled directions) being dangerous if used at all by my neighbors. But I have no problems whatsoever with my neighbors owning machine guns. Firearms propel a projectile in a specific direction (i.e. where you aim). They don't randomly throw bullets in any direction. The user controls where the projectile goes.
     
  19. Ian

    Ian Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,857
    Sorry, when I said "fight", I meant fight in court as a test case. If you want to lobby politicians, go for it. But don't fight a court unless you're into figurative self-immolation (this goes for both gun laws and the income tax).
     
  20. PromptCritical

    PromptCritical Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2003
    Messages:
    382
    Location:
    The State of the Beaver
    ONe other problem: Many states (like my home state of Oregon) have state statutes making possession of NFA weapons illegal unless registered. Abolishing the NFA would effectively ban them in many places since they would no longer be registered. They would be illegal until the state legislature repealed the law, which would be a shaky proposition.
     
  21. ksnecktieman

    ksnecktieman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    Messages:
    1,152
    Location:
    Junction City, Kansas
    crunker? Are you going to draw the line, and enforce it?" Do you want me to draw the line? Or do you want my EX wife to draw it? ANY line is an INFRINGEMENT, and thereby the second amendment says that it is repugnant to the constitution, and should not be enforced.
     
  22. ksnecktieman

    ksnecktieman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    Messages:
    1,152
    Location:
    Junction City, Kansas
    IAN???? I think we have been shafted,,, the courts have a choice,,, it is called certoray, if I understand the speakers of legalese properly. What I as a layman understands, is that if you want to challenge the constituinality of a law,,, you have to break it and bet your life on the outcome. If you are not asrrested, and charged, you can not object to the law.

    Can some of our legal eaglescorrect me?????
     
  23. ksnecktieman

    ksnecktieman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    Messages:
    1,152
    Location:
    Junction City, Kansas
    sorry,,, Crunker? You are more than ten years obsolete. On all subjects, and glocks are not invisible to xrays, never were, and never will be
     
  24. illspirit

    illspirit Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2007
    Messages:
    289
    Location:
    Virginia
    And then in a few years, we'd slip a rider into the inevitable Dictionary Owners Protection Act closing down the word registry altogether. ;)


    But seriously, aside from some kamikaze approach to register other freedoms in order to force the courts to knock the precedent out from underneath, the legal system is an infinite, recursive loop of illogic: "We're regulating interstate commerce and you can only own militia weapons which you can't own because they're not militia weapons and there's no interstate commerce there to regulate." It's like the govt's position there is too busy arguing with itself for us to get a word in edgewise! :banghead:

    At any rate, 'tis probably best to try and get the registry opened again. Yes, it's an infringement, but if MG prices could be brought back to a reasonable level, more people could and would be exposed to them. And with more people interested in owning one, that would be more people who might call their rep's and vote on behalf of repealing the NFA. In theory anyway.

    As for getting the registry opened, err, perhaps a reverse think-of-the-children campaign? As in, spread the message on how the govt. is refusing to register MGs, thus resulting in hundreds of thousands of untraceable weapons "on the streets." To add to the confusion, be sure to mention it was the big, mean Republicans who closed the registry when they passed the GOPA for the "gun lobby." That wouldn't be taking High Road, to be sure, but, hey, nice guys finish last...
     
  25. wdlsguy

    wdlsguy Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2004
    Messages:
    2,880
    Location:
    TX
    Just so we're all clear, which rights did I sign away?

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice