Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 9/9/2004 1:38:13 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 1:53:43 AM EST
I bought a Glock a few years ago with letter head and did not have to pay FET. I bet the same will apply after the AWB is gone. The letter just stated that the gun was for duty and I would not sale it for one year.

ScubaTexas
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 2:53:31 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:31:52 AM EST
Hi Tweak!

When I bought my service weapon back in the late 1970s, arranged by my local Chief with our law enforcement supplier, I had to pay the FET as I was the legal owner of the gun even though it was my service weapon.

I recently found the invoice and it was made out to the PD and had my name on it as well. I had to do the 4473, MA FA-10 and pay the LE price + FET + MA Sales Tax to pick up the gun. The FFL was a law enforcement only business and explained to me thoroughly that the Feds required FET on all PERSONAL purchases of LE guns.

When our PD changed guns, the Chief offered me the S&W 64s for a flat $100 each (no tax, no FET) and those were purchased FET-free years earlier with town funds. I did pass on the deal, but I'm sure it would have been no problem. The "one year" rule sounds very likely since it prevents avoiding FET intentionally, but once a gun is 10 years old in gov't service and retired I'm sure that the Feds aren't going to come looking for FET from non-mfrs.

I'm surprised that Scuba was able to purchase a personal gun without FET, but suspect that perhaps the sale was to the PD and later the PD officially (or not) transferred ownership to Scuba. If they did otherwise, the PD or seller may have violated the FET tax law.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 10:13:03 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2004 10:14:17 AM EST by Sparky315]
Individual officers must pay the FET, only departments are exempt. You can get Glocks cheaper on letterhead because Glock just gives cops a discount on guns used for duty. You are still paying FET.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:10:43 PM EST
FET will still exist, and is separate from the AWB.

There has always been an exception for weapons purchased from the agency, though. As long as it was in bona fide use by the agency for more than a year, and the sale was not some way to dodge the FET, then the officer can purchase the weapon, from the agency, and not have to pay FET.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 10:48:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By natez:
FET will still exist, and is separate from the AWB.

There has always been an exception for weapons purchased from the agency, though. As long as it was in bona fide use by the agency for more than a year, and the sale was not some way to dodge the FET, then the officer can purchase the weapon, from the agency, and not have to pay FET.



Note that there is not a "1 year rule." If this technique was used to not pay FET, then you will run into trouble.

If you get a firearm that did not have FET paid on it because it has reached end of life for department, then you will likely not have a problem.

FET on handguns is 10%, everything else is 11%.

mark
buda@TripleBreakProducts.com
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 11:59:26 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 12:38:34 AM EST
We buy our LEO weapons on Department Letterhead and still have to pay FET. They belong to the individual officers but I believe as long as they are for duty use we are exempt sales tax. The only thing that is exempt FEX are the weapons that actually belong to the Dept.

Link Posted: 9/10/2004 9:34:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By Tweak:
I know but many ofcs bought LEO only weapons through their departments. At the time they could not buy them directly due to the status of the rifles. Those are agency rifles. I was asking if FET needed to be paid before those rifles were transferred to the individual ofcs.



FET is required when an officer buys and personnally possesses the firearm.

Tax evasion occurs when the department buys it FET free and then transfers it officer for personnel ownership, with the intent to bypass paying FET.

If department is selling FET free firearms as part of standard upgrade process (e.g. every so many years, new vendor, etc.) then it will likely not be a problem.

mark
buda@TripleBreakProducts.com
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 9:02:16 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 3:51:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By budam:

Originally Posted By natez:
FET will still exist, and is separate from the AWB.

There has always been an exception for weapons purchased from the agency, though. As long as it was in bona fide use by the agency for more than a year, and the sale was not some way to dodge the FET, then the officer can purchase the weapon, from the agency, and not have to pay FET.



Note that there is not a "1 year rule." If this technique was used to not pay FET, then you will run into trouble.

If you get a firearm that did not have FET paid on it because it has reached end of life for department, then you will likely not have a problem.

FET on handguns is 10%, everything else is 11%.

mark
buda@TripleBreakProducts.com



I don't disagree with any of that. We hashed this out about a year ago hen our agency upgraded to the new rail SIGs ATF told us that we were not responsible for paying FET when legitimately buying our weapons back, as long as they had been in service for more than a year. ATF told us that the "one year" thing wasn't codified in the law, but was more of a litmus test to see if the deal was legitimate and not intended to dodge paying the tax. Where this came in was that there were a few NIB, never issued P229s in the system that officers theoretically could have purchased for right around $400, (and a real steal at that price) and they would have had to pay FET on those.

All that aside, where things really got confusing was sales tax. I had to get a letter from my accountant (God Bless him) to get that straightened out.
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 12:02:17 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/12/2004 12:02:57 AM EST by Stickman]

Originally Posted By Tweak:
Thanks Mark, we've been hashing it out on the AR15-L. I don't think it's a concern given the number of illegal "pre bans" and such that i see in LE hands. Agency guns don't see a lot of oversight anyway.



I've seen more "illegal" fake-prebans in the hands of citizens then I have in the hands of officers. The difference is that I have said something to officers.

FET has already been covered pretty well. It is already paid for when an individual officer buys a weapon. The stamped AR15s that an officer bought on letterhead already has FET paid. If the department bought and owned the weapon (not just signed for), then it would be different.

For example, I paid FET on my duty AR15 that I bought, but FET was not paid for with the duty sidearm, as it is department issue. If I buy it when they are sold/ replaced, I would not have to pay FET, just like you wouldn't pay FET on any other used weapon you bought.
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 12:30:41 AM EST
IMHO . . .

FET would be the sole responsibility of the L.E. Dept. if it maintained an FFL.

There is no direct method for a non FFL individual to pay FET.
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 1:02:31 AM EST
Top Top