Timeline to remove suppressors and SBRs from NFA ?

[Mad Dawg]

The NFA act of 1934 was NEVER about taxes; and it was never about getting guns out of the hands of criminals or the mafia. In 1934, the $200 tax stamp would represent most of the income of any individual during that year- thus making anything that fell under NFA as being too rich for their blood. It was basically a tax to remove certain categories of firearms from the common man in favor of the rich, who could easily pay the tax. If adjusted for inflation, it'd be the equivalent of a $3600 tax today. It was levied against otherwise law abiding citizens by their own politicians, and I see no reason why politicians would even really contemplate removing such regulations; the masses don't care about silencers, SBR's or SBS's.. Looking at the bill is mere appeasement. Resubmitting the bill will also be mere appeasement. Now, if politicians thought that they could adjust the tax upwards to say $3600, they surely would...

The ban on new machine guns in 1986 was not about removing automatic firearms from the hands of criminals; politicians knew by cutting off the flow of new machine guns, the prices of existing machine guns would skyrocket, effectively removing such firearms - again- from the hands of common men. Rather than a tax, politicians leveraged the laws of supply and demand.. Another law that favored the rich, and was basically putting the foot on the neck of those with more limited income.

Both forms of legislation were enacted against those that elected those same politicians; mind you, politicians only need the masses to get put into office; after that, their votes sway towards whatever the rich want as that is who pads their wallets. Politicians have not changed; there is no intention of removing anything from the purview of NFA; nor is there any interest in allowing those of lesser means in having fully automatic weapons either. The only thing that you can be sure of is that most politicians are willing to strip more rights away; but they have zero interests in allowing it's citizens to firearms that have already been restricted by any means.. Nothing will change for the positive.. Sorry to burst anyone's bubble(s).

 

[Mad Dawg]

I thought for a second and I thought I'd add this: When you buy a $35,000 vehicle, you pay the tax at the time you pay for the vehicle, and the dealer collects it and sends it to the government. They don't hold your vehicle; they don't force a background check, and they don't make you wait 6 to 9 months for the paperwork to come back approved with the stamp so that you can pick up your vehicle. The tax would be far greater than $200; and there are far more vehicles being bought and sold than silencers. When you purchase your groceries every week, you also pay for the taxes up front, at the store, who collects it and sends it in.. They don't put your groceries in a room in the back and await a stamp to say that you've paid your taxes; and it certainly does not take 10 months to process. When you buy a non-NFA gun, you pay for it, including taxes, and perform the background check and pick up your gun the same day if your state allows; there is zero logical reasons that silencers or SBRs or SBS's are not processed similarly. If silencers could be bought OTC, with the tax paid for at the counter, how many silencers would be sold just tomorrow ? The aim of a 6 to 9 month wait isn't the background check; NICS does it in 15 seconds.. It's meant to discourage purchasing something... And on a trust, there's no background check to run because there is NO individual per se to run the check on..

This new 41P rules: some think it's a godsend because it eliminates LEO signatures.. But I would argue that the real aim was to complicate trusts; trusts are used for legal reasons- like legalities about a spouse being able to handle having a suppressor in her/his possession if the other spouse purchased it. 41P rules require fingerprinting of those on the trust along with photos; basically fingerprinted and a mugshot taken, for each purchase. Why ? Now, you have to drag the wife and anyone else on the trust down each time you decide to add something to the trust ; the PTB wanted to discourage trusts ! .. They want to inconvenience the wives; actually, to most wives, it's probably more like being arrested, then fingerprinted, and mugshot taken for a new purchase of something that is supposedly legal.. Nice negative connotation .. Have a feeling that fewer trusts will include the wives initially nowadays.. But come on, don't tell me that the wives aren't going to feel like common criminals... And don't tell me that this wasn't the true aim of 41P.. It's more encroachment and more discouragement... The aim is to actually discourage SBR/ SBS & silencer sales...

 

[armoredman]

Considering that we have had some firearms acts repealed here and there, I will remain cautiously optimistic, regardless, and will do my best to make my little people voice heard up there in rich people land. Suppressors would be nice, removing SBR/SBS would be flat out awesome. But, one thing at a time, if it is going to happen.

 

[Ryanxia]

Mad Dawg - while I agree with your statement, one thing to keep in mind is that all those hoops to jump through are INTENTIONAL. They didn't feel that they could outright ban these items so they heavily regulated them to discourage people from having them and to be able to look very closely at anyone wanting them. In fact, the reason for short barrel rifles and shotguns is because originally ALL HANDGUNS were on the NFA list and they knew that shortening a rifle or shotgun would be what people would do. It wasn't just to collect a tax. Adjusted for inflation, $200 in 1934 has the same buying power as $3,536 today!

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The NFA act of 1934 was NEVER about taxes; and it was never about getting guns out of the hands of criminals or the mafia.

However in United States versus Miller (1939), the government defended by saying it WAS a tax, not gun control.

 

[AlexanderA]

The effect of the $200 tax, in 1934, was to roughly double the price of a Thompson. Thompsons were already slow sellers, at a retail price of about $250. The initial 15,000 Thompsons, made by Colt in1921, still had not sold out until the approach of WW2.

By comparison, a Model A Ford was $750. The average annual wage in America was $1,368 (although a Congressman earned $8,663, an airline pilot $8,000, an average lawyer $4,218, and a college professor $3,111 -- while the average hired farm hand made a mere $216 a year). A Mafia hit man made $5,200 a year ($100 a week), so he could easily afford a Thompson. Ordinary hunting rifles were $30, while pistols ran between $20 and $25. http://www.paper-dragon.com/1939/priceguide.html

 

[Zoogster]

Many of the most notorious criminals of the prohibition gangster era got their big weapons from police or national guard armories.
That means many would not have been impacted if the NFA had already been in place, though perhaps the police may not have had as many to be stolen.

The intent of the NFA was to outlaw machineguns at a time when the government believed it only had authority to tax and not ban outright.
The Bonus Army seems to have had more to do with motivating legislators in Washington to ban such firearms, even though the gangsters are the more known issue at the time.
Roosevelt was as close as the nation ever had to a Dictator, even though he is remembered favorably today. He would have had an army forming outside his house.
A bunch of vets camping outside the Capitol when the last major war, one they were a part of, was decided through trench warfare and primarily weapons those same people could purchase.
Shovels, some guns, and basic arty, was still how people won wars, and people with experience doing so were pretty upset and camping at the capitol ruffling up FDR.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

All the great dictators of the 20th Century held a meeting.

Stalin said, "I will rule the world! Communism is inevitable!"

Mussolini said, "I will rule the world. Rome ruled the world once before, and we will rule again."

Hitler said, "I will rule the world! I am the leader of the Master Race. God told me I would rule the world!"

Roosevelt said, "Now, Hitler. I never told you any such thing."

 

[lilguy]

And I'm afraid its looking not so good for some of the major initiatives Trump campaigned on.
Repeal of the NFA to any great degree I think is a pipe dream.

 

[armoredman]

Date All Actions
02/06/2017 Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Action By: House Judiciary
01/09/2017 Referred to House Judiciary
Action By: House of Representatives
01/09/2017 Referred to House Ways and Means
Action By: House of Representatives
01/09/2017 Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Action By: House of Representatives
01/09/2017 Introduced in House
Action By: House of Representatives

 

[langenc]

It is a nice thought, but I suspect that reality is that political capital won't be spent on something (this) that is very easy for liberals to cry about, and doesn't actually advance any of the important agenda items.

My guess is none of this will ever happen, but I'd be extremely happy to be proven wrong.

It will never happen if you never contact your US Rep and senators...

 

[CapnMac]

The intent of the NFA was to outlaw machineguns at a time when the government believed it only had authority to tax and not ban outright.

Actually, initially, NFA was meant to ban all hand guns and anything "concealable." Which is why it goes to all the convoluted rigamarole over overall lenghts, barrel lengths, and whether a rifle can be shortened versus a pistol lengthened.

When that was seen as unlikely to pass, the bill was "saved" by changing the focus to "machine guns"--a crime tool whose era had already passed (everywhere but the movies and pop culture). A bunch of classists who objected to hoi polloi in "their" state and national parks rammed the suppressor bit in there to keep "poachers" *read immigrants) out.

So, it's just a convoluted a bill as FOPA was, what with it's just-after-the-last-second passage of the Hughes amendment.

 

[AlexanderA]

In a rational world the NFA would have been repealed long ago, as an artifact of a bygone era. Full-automatic fire in a handheld selective-fire weapon is basically a novelty and an ammunition-waster, and belt-fed heavy automatic weapons are not practical for use in crime.

It seems to me, politically, that the only way that the NFA can be repealed now is as part of a comprehensive package of gun legislation, in which we gain some things but lose others. The most effective weapon available to civilians is the semiautomatic military-clone rifle (the so-called "assault rifle"), and the right to own that must be protected even at the cost of accepting the status quo regarding full automatics and other NFA items.

 

[armoredman]

Maybe I'm a stick in the mud, reactionary, ultra conservative, but I'm not liking the whole idea of "we gain here but lose here". I'm thinking we've lost enough already, so we need to just hammer back on the things we've lost. I know, "not realistic" under some peoples views...but a whole lot of things everyone thought was highly unrealistic have happened - one is in the White House right now.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

We should play to win -- there is no sense in playing to tie.

 

[AlexanderA]

We should play to win -- there is no sense in playing to tie.

"The perfect is the enemy of the good." If you want to be a purist and hold out for the ideal (in this case, the total repeal of the NFA) while rejecting any half measures, it's almost certain that you will end up with nothing.

We've been on dead center regarding the NFA since FOPA of '86 (more than 30 years!). Getting anything done to rationalize the currently irrational regulation of NFA items will involve at least talking to our putative opponents. As we have seen, sadly, since January 20th, having supposed pro-gunners controlling all three branches of government is still not enough.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

"The perfect is the enemy of the good." If you want to be a purist and hold out for the ideal (in this case, the total repeal of the NFA) while rejecting any half measures, it's almost certain that you will end up with nothing.

We've been on dead center regarding the NFA since FOPA of '86 (more than 30 years!). Getting anything done to rationalize the currently irrational regulation of NFA items will involve at least talking to our putative opponents. As we have seen, sadly, since January 20th, having supposed pro-gunners controlling all three branches of government is still not enough.

Who said "purist?" Who said we should "reject any half measures?"

I said "We should play to win." That is, when the smoke clears, we should have more than we started with. Do you disagree with that?

 

[AlexanderA]

I said "We should play to win." That is, when the smoke clears, we should have more than we started with. Do you disagree with that?

No, of course I don't disagree. The goal, though, is to keep piling up net gains. This may involve making tactical concessions, in return for something we want more. This is how all business and diplomatic negotiation works.

 

[armoredman]

Exactly - we cannot get the whole enchilada of the NFA/GCA going bye bye without an epic SCOTUS decision that I don't see coming, but we could get bits and pieces back. I say we take them back by chunk and block, but no "compromise", no more "give to take" on something that we have been the only one to give on - that's how we got here in the first place.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

No, of course I don't disagree. The goal, though, is to keep piling up net gains. This may involve making tactical concessions, in return for something we want more. This is how all business and diplomatic negotiation works.

As an old horse trader once said, "Always draw boot." Meaning get some cash in each trade -- and you'll come out ahead.