MD_Willington
Member
I don't care about the full auto either, I just like the short rifle as a truck carbine, a krink or a MP5 carbine, the semi-auto ones the bobbies use would be just fine for me... but to each their own.
Would you buy NFA stuff if the tax was less?
- Thread starter strat81
- Start date
- Status
MRIman
Member
I'd pay for the stamp if the "great state of NY" would let me!!!
MRI
MRI
Autolycus
Member
I would probably get a can and maybe a short barreleed shotgun if they were legal here. It is the cost of the guns that prohibits me as a poor college student. I figure that a short barrelled shotgun would probably be a cheap weapon.
Zak Smith
Member
In the scheme of things, $200 isn't that much. While there are some $300 cans, there are a whole lot more $500-1000 cans. The beauty of inflation is that the cost of the stamp keeps going down in real terms. I personally believe that if the Form 3 and Form 4 wait was measured in minutes (or even days) instead of weeks and months, a lot more people would buy them. There's no technical reason why they can't make that happen. But then there's motivation and incentive....
One side-effect of the $200 transfer tax on suppressors is that people tend to want a "really good one" that will last a long time, and this puts market pressure on product improvement.
-z
One side-effect of the $200 transfer tax on suppressors is that people tend to want a "really good one" that will last a long time, and this puts market pressure on product improvement.
-z
The 200 dollar tax was started in 1934. 200 bucks back in '34 was a LOT more than it is today. Back then it was to keep the commonfolk from getting NFA items. I wonder why it hasn't been raised along with inflation?
I'm against all NFA laws. They should be treated as any other firearm.
and I agree. It's not the tax, it's everything else.
I'm against all NFA laws. They should be treated as any other firearm.
and I agree. It's not the tax, it's everything else.
CajunBass
Member
I've actually considered coughing up the dough for an SBR. Maybe in the spring....
As an Illinois resident I'd be happy if we could just start with letting me get one with the paper work and the tax. I think the tax and the paperwork is a serious block to ownership though. I know several Illinois residents who don't buy guns or get more into shooting because the foid card is too much of a hassle to get.
PAshooter
Member
I'd buy a can (or three) in a heartbeat if not for the tax.
On the other hand, if full autos were sufficiently plentiful that prices were reasonable (i.e. if the registry were reopened) I'd have no problem paying a $200 tax on a $1200 M4.
So... yes and no.
On the other hand, if full autos were sufficiently plentiful that prices were reasonable (i.e. if the registry were reopened) I'd have no problem paying a $200 tax on a $1200 M4.
So... yes and no.
DrDremel
Member
There is a way to get SBS and SBRs in Michigan. I have 3 personally approved by ATF and MI green cards for them as well. For details, see the thread in the shotgun section on my short barreled shotgun build. It is only allowed for certain firearms, but I have a Sistema with shoulder stock, Remington 870 SBS, and a 10/22 SBR. There is even a way to own an AR15 SBR but it is quite expensive.
As for silencers, there is something in the works to change that as well. While that one is not a done deal, I am confident enough that I have 2 silencers waiting at my dealer already.
The $200 tax cost does not bother me. The 86 unconstitutional ban on new machineguns for non-government use does bother me. I have one but would like a few more but I agree that they have reached a point where I would rather spend the money on other things. The registry is stupid, especially for a safety device (silencers) but I don't see it changing anytime soon. Of all the items, a silencer or short barreled firearm are the most practical for most people.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=279556
As for silencers, there is something in the works to change that as well. While that one is not a done deal, I am confident enough that I have 2 silencers waiting at my dealer already.
The $200 tax cost does not bother me. The 86 unconstitutional ban on new machineguns for non-government use does bother me. I have one but would like a few more but I agree that they have reached a point where I would rather spend the money on other things. The registry is stupid, especially for a safety device (silencers) but I don't see it changing anytime soon. Of all the items, a silencer or short barreled firearm are the most practical for most people.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=279556
AntiqueCollector
Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2007
- Messages
- 842
Well it kind of is. If there weren't the NFA rules and tax, cheap silencers would be available and more people could have a silencer, even if not top quality. You're right that the tax tends to make people want high quality ones, and that means less people can have them. And a $200 tax on destructive devices is really high, when it comes to every round for a grenade launcher or the like needing that tax stamp...
MrPeter
Member
I would own at least 1 can for a .22 if it was legal in my state
I would own many cans for many calibers if it was legal in my state and there was a reduced tax/paperwork
I would own many suppressed Full Auto rifles and submachine guns if it was legal in my state and there was a reduced tax/paperwork OR the registration was re-opened and I could get a full auto .223 for $1200.
I would own many cans for many calibers if it was legal in my state and there was a reduced tax/paperwork
I would own many suppressed Full Auto rifles and submachine guns if it was legal in my state and there was a reduced tax/paperwork OR the registration was re-opened and I could get a full auto .223 for $1200.
Sniper X
Member
On my purchase of a supressor for a P22 YES! Because it will cost about 650 for a $300.00 item. Tha's rediculous and a crime on the citizen to have to pay more in taxes and payola than the peice costs.
phoglund
Member
Artificially making an item more expensive (Silencer) does not make the over all quality better. Competition makes products better. If it were inexpensive and easy to own a sound suppressor I believe many people would own them. This would make suppressor production profitable through volume and would increase quality simply because there would be a larger amount of potential profit to be made from a quality suppressor at a reasonable price. The combination of an extremely limited market and the high start-up costs associated with suppressor production severely limits competition and therefore value (i.e. low cost/high quality).
If I could purchase suppressors at $100 - $200 a piece I'd have several.
If I could purchase suppressors at $100 - $200 a piece I'd have several.
LiquidTension
Member
I buy NFA stuff with the tax at $200, so yeah - I'd buy stuff if it were $25 
To those stuck on the $200 tax for a silencer -- I think you're seriously underestimating the utility of a good silencer. Go listen to some, or goto a silencer shoot. Being able to hold a conversation without shouting, and shooting without pissing off the neighbors is a great benefit.
I know people who own a half dozen 22 pistols and rifles, instead of buying yet-another-redundant-22 for $400, they could put that money into an accessory that will provide huge utility to all of their 22s.
Also, don't look at the $200 tax as a 50% or 100% tax on a silencer, think of it as a $200 stay-out-of-jail card. Easily worth it.
-T
I know people who own a half dozen 22 pistols and rifles, instead of buying yet-another-redundant-22 for $400, they could put that money into an accessory that will provide huge utility to all of their 22s.
Also, don't look at the $200 tax as a 50% or 100% tax on a silencer, think of it as a $200 stay-out-of-jail card. Easily worth it.
-T
I agree, nothing like being able to talk while shooting, rather then having fragmented conversations between volleys of fire.
I own suppressors so I can't really complain too much, but I think in this age the tax should be reduced to $5, and streamline the process. And of course repeal the 86 MG ban.
Limeyfellow
Member
The whole tax and limitation on suppressors is just plain silly. They have more uses than most other stuff from self defense, hunting, quieting down ranges and protecting people's hearing.
They need to make them easier to get ahold off. It is no problem buying and using one in Britain, but here in the US the authorities want you to jump through hoops.
They need to make them easier to get ahold off. It is no problem buying and using one in Britain, but here in the US the authorities want you to jump through hoops.
Ghost Tracker
Member
To me, it's not the tax...it's the scrunity. I can buy LOTS & LOTS of guns in a legal manner that have no paper-trail in Washington or anywhere else. But you can't say the same for registered weapons or suppressors.
American_Pit_Bull
Member
Shouldn't the poll be Would you buy more NFA stuff....
I will keep on buying my NFA toys! It doesn't get any easier than the "Trust Route".
I will keep on buying my NFA toys! It doesn't get any easier than the "Trust Route".
If you can meet the storage requirements on a explosive destructive device, the $200 tax really is nothing. For everything except cheap SBS (ie. cut down hinge actions H&R's and Rossis, etc...) and low end silencers, $200 is very little- 1/3 or less of the price of the weapon in most cases.
AtticusThraxx
Member
You know I thought about your question and for the life of me, I just cannot think of any reason why I'd want or need a full auto weapon or a silencer. Not saying you guys want them, you shouldn't have em, just I don't have any need or desire. Full auto? I can barely afford to feed the stuff I have now one shot at a time. And you could sell silencers at Ace Hardware ofr 9.99 ea, and I still probably wouldn't buy one without a coupon. Just don't have any need. I pull a trigger and hear a pfssst instead of a bang I get worried.
Am I the only one who thinks this way? Shalll I turn in my NRA membership?
Am I the only one who thinks this way? Shalll I turn in my NRA membership?
Its funny because you guys are whining about the process, and don't get me wrong, it does suck, but its EXACTLY what we go through for just a regular AR15.
You guys have to do the following for an NFA
-Full background check
-Fingerprint check
-Have the sheriff or police chief of your city sign off on the NFA item
-Have the weapon registered to your name.
We have to do the following for a restricted (handguns, most assault rifles, etc)
-Full background check (just for the licence to own firearms)
-Have the chief firearms officer of our province approve the firearm
-Have the firearm registered to our name
-Can only be used at an approved range, no hunting, recreation, etc
it sucks.
Are you guys allowed to use your NFA firearms for hunting or recreation? Or can they only be used at approved ranges?
Do you need to keep your NFA paperwork with you at all times? We have to have our paperwork for the registered firearm (any class) at all times, or else its a fine and a forfiet licence.
You guys have to do the following for an NFA
-Full background check
-Fingerprint check
-Have the sheriff or police chief of your city sign off on the NFA item
-Have the weapon registered to your name.
We have to do the following for a restricted (handguns, most assault rifles, etc)
-Full background check (just for the licence to own firearms)
-Have the chief firearms officer of our province approve the firearm
-Have the firearm registered to our name
-Can only be used at an approved range, no hunting, recreation, etc
it sucks.
Are you guys allowed to use your NFA firearms for hunting or recreation? Or can they only be used at approved ranges?
Do you need to keep your NFA paperwork with you at all times? We have to have our paperwork for the registered firearm (any class) at all times, or else its a fine and a forfiet licence.
- Status
Similar threads
