Theoretical

[Geronimo45]

Let's say you are a law-abiding citizen, of age, with money. You decide to buy a Class III civvie-legal gadget... for this theoretical, we'll say it's an M4, selective fire, an SBR, and it has a suppressor.

So, the question is - do you pay 200 extra for each one of those things? Also, do SOTs have to pay the 200 stamp, too?

 

[hso]

Each feature requires a transfer tax payment for civies. Suppressed+SBR+Selective Fire= $600

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Unless it's an AOW which are only a $5 transfer (but $200 at the time of manufacture). I don't know if SOT's pay transfers, I wouldn't think so but maybe they do. Isn't it like $1500 a year to be a SOT?
P.S.- Your full auto suppressed M4 SBR would be $400 transfer because machine guns can have any length barrel they want.

 

[Geronimo45]

Thanks for the replies. I guess the government really needs the money...

 

[hso]

P.S.- Your full auto suppressed M4 SBR would be $400 transfer because machine guns can have any length barrel

Doh! I'm such an idjet! Thanks for the correction, DoubleTapDrew.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Thanks for the correction, DoubleTapDrew.

No problem, I didn't catch it either at first, that's why I went back and edited my post with that P.S. on the end.

The $200 tax is actually a bargain considering it was $200 back in 1934 also which I think adjusted for inflation would be somewhere in the $10k range today. Well, it's a bargain if you don't mind the fact that it's totally unconstitutional and circumventing the constitution by calling it a tax and not a BAN. :banghead:
Still sucks you have to pay $400 to the .gov just to cut a few inches off your barrel and protect your hearing.

 

[wdlsguy]

The $200 tax is actually a bargain considering it was $200 back in 1934 also which I think adjusted for inflation would be somewhere in the $10k range today.

According to this inflation calculator $200 in 1934 was the equivalent of $2855 in 2005. Still a lot of money.

Well, it's a bargain if you don't mind the fact that it's totally unconstitutional and circumventing the constitution by calling it a tax and not a BAN.

I'll take a transfer tax over an outright ban any day of the week.

 

[pythonguy]

Hell where I live you'd get arrested for just looking at one. And as for the $200 tax staying the same, aren't full auto's like 10K to buy now? Kind of makes up for the low tax. Imagine what it'll be like in 2008 if the she-devil, Lord Hillary, becomes Prez??? We'll all be up the creek without a firearm..............

 

[pax]

Okay, Class-III idiot here (I live in a state where they're not allowed ...) Please forgive the stupid questions below.

1) What's an SOT?

2) That $200 tax -- it's a one-time fee, like a sales tax? Or is it a yearly expense, more like an income tax?

pax

 

[Brian Williams]

the $200 is a one time transfer tax, so when it changes owners the tax is paid.
not sure SOT

 

[Dave Markowitz]

1) What's an SOT?

Special Occupational Taxpayer. E.g., someone who can legally make and sell MGs or suppressors.

2) That $200 tax -- it's a one-time fee, like a sales tax? Or is it a yearly expense, more like an income tax?

It's a tax on transfers. It needs to be paid only if the taxed item changes hands.

 

[Correia]

pax,

An SOT is a Special Occupational Taxpayer. It is a type of FFL who is allowed to manufacture new machine guns.

The tax is a one time, per item tax.

And the initial gun would only have $400 in taxes. $200 for the suppresor. $200 for the full auto. You can stick whatever you want onto a full auto, SBR doesn't matter.

 

[Jim Watson]

I think when the $200 transfer tax went in, a Thompson was about $250 new.
Imagine if they had set it at 80% of retail instead of a fixed dollar amount.
At one time new cars carried a 2/3 tax in England.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I'll take a transfer tax over an outright ban any day of the week.

Then that is how they will win.

 

[wdlsguy]

TexasSIGman, if you take me for an anti-gunner, you are sorely mistaken. :banghead:

ETA: How is an outright ban preferable to a transfer tax?

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

ETA: How is an outright ban preferable to a transfer tax?

I think he meant that's how they'll get you, by saying "well, I guess a tax is ok" in 1934, then saying "well, I don't need newly imported ones I guess" in 1968, then saying "well, I guess I don't need newly made ones" in 1986. They keep chipping away. The price has gone up more than 10x what they cost in 1986 because they capped the supply, esentially banning them once the supply runs out. They know they can't actually ban them so they just make them so hard to get and so outrageously expensive it might as well be banned because few people can afford them. They know there aren't enough NFA owners to make a big enough stink to get it overturned. :banghead:
I bet the people that are supposed to be representing us laugh to themselves at the thought of us peons paying $14,000 for a 25 year old M-16 that cost $800 new.

P.S. Pax: If this page is accurate in WA you can own suppressors, Any Other Weapons, and large bore destructive devices. You can't own machine guns, short barrel rifles, short barrel shotguns, or exploding or incendiary destructive devices. Check out the side note for WA: you can own a silencer but it can't be attached to a gun! Nothing like a $800 paperweight that you had to pay $200 tax on and jump through the BATFE's hoops eh?