Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 7/22/2008 11:27:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/22/2008 11:28:20 AM EDT by Blackmagic94]
Taken from the 13th page of the BATFE's NFA handbook.


While the NFA was enacted by Congress as an exercise of its authority to tax, the NFA
had an underlying purpose unrelated to revenue collection. As the legislative history of
the law discloses, its underlying purpose was to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions in
NFA firearms. Congress found these firearms to pose a significant crime problem
because of their frequent use in crime, particularly the gangland crimes of that era such as
the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. The $200 making and transfer taxes on most NFA
firearms were considered quite severe and adequate to carry out Congress’ purpose to
discourage or eliminate transactions in these firearms
. The $200 tax has not changed
since 1934.




That seems to go against Heller quiet nicely. Congress is trying to eliminate a group of weapons as a whole against the 2A.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 11:29:04 AM EDT
2nd amendment alone is grounds enough.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 11:31:33 AM EDT
go for it, i will donate
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 11:34:03 AM EDT
When the NFA was enacted, the common individual arm was a bolt action.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 11:35:58 AM EDT
Well of course, but Heller is the frame work to fight it, the Congress of 34 and the BATFE are trying to eliminate a class of weapons all together, and the BATFE is a tax collection agency, nothing else in my eyes.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 11:38:09 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 11:39:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Keith_J:
When the NFA was enacted, the common individual arm was a bolt action.



That is absolute bullshit.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 11:42:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:

Originally Posted By Blackmagic94:
Well of course, but Heller is the frame work to fight it, the Congress of 34 and the BATFE are trying to eliminate a class of weapons all together, and the BATFE is a tax collection agency, nothing else in my eyes.


that used to be true but GW merged them into the DHS and they are now officially law enforcement.


Uhhh, I thought they are law enforcement simply because they switched from a tresury branch to department of justice? As far as I know they are not part of DHS.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 11:43:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By peekay:
2nd amendment alone is grounds enough.


+1, we should need no other points of argument.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 11:44:20 AM EDT
So.....What is the BIG PLAN?
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 11:45:41 AM EDT
It proves that the 1934 law was a total ban and not a reasonable restriction.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 11:49:24 AM EDT
I'll donate to whoever challenges it.

I'm still waiting on the "Official ARFCOM NFA Class Action Lawsuit" thread to appear...
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 11:50:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Blackmagic94:

Originally Posted By Keith_J:
When the NFA was enacted, the common individual arm was a bolt action.



That is absolute bullshit.


M1903A3 The Thompson M1? 1938. But it was not issued to all soldiers.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 11:54:01 AM EDT
I'm really surprised nobody has fought it as punitive taxation. That's not constitutional either.

Then again, they've gotten away with punitive taxation on cigarettes too, and nobody's called them on it. Gotta wonder why nobody's called them on that in either case.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 11:54:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/22/2008 11:57:14 AM EDT by GUNSFORHIRE]
I think it would be better to get the 1986 law repealed ...they will never get a law where the NFA type weapons unregulated...now to have M16's at $800.00 or MP5's at $1300.00 with a 200.00 stamp...I am ALL OVER THAT IDEA!!!

Just imagine the revenue the .GOV could bring in..In a years time they could balance the budget..Just on my purchases!
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 11:58:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Originally Posted By Blackmagic94:

Originally Posted By Keith_J:
When the NFA was enacted, the common individual arm was a bolt action.



That is absolute bullshit.


M1903A3 The Thompson M1? 1938. But it was not issued to all soldiers.



Where are you getting this shit from? Where did the 2A address this issue in 1775?

The Thompson was available to civilians prior to the NFA.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 11:58:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/22/2008 12:00:35 PM EDT by MudBug]

Originally Posted By Blackmagic94:

Originally Posted By Keith_J:
When the NFA was enacted, the common individual arm was a bolt action.



That is absolute bullshit.



Wasn't the majority of Thompson SMG sales to private owners as ranch guns and HD?


ETA: I mean prior to NFA of course.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 11:58:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/22/2008 12:08:27 PM EDT by whomper]

Originally Posted By Keith_J:
When the NFA was enacted, the common individual arm was a bolt action.


But when the Second Amendment was written, the common individual arm was a muzzle loader...


FWIW, I hope nobody takes a half assed NFA challenge to court. The reason Heller took so long was that they found the PERFECT people to bring the suit. Same needs to be done here
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 11:58:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Originally Posted By Blackmagic94:

Originally Posted By Keith_J:
When the NFA was enacted, the common individual arm was a bolt action.



That is absolute bullshit.


M1903A3 The Thompson M1? 1938. But it was not issued to all soldiers.


Hm.. Me thinks Keith_J is right. The 1903 was the standard issue infantry weapon on the time (1934). the M1 Garand (which the NFA does not even address) was not issued till 1938 at the earliest. The Thompson SMG was not standard issue. *

* hm.. thinking.. the army did not really buy/issue the thompson enmasse till ww2, as did the british. I'm sure the army HAD thompsons in inventory in the 1930s, but were probably only in limited issue to select units. Not sure.

Link Posted: 7/22/2008 12:02:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NimmerMehr:

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Originally Posted By Blackmagic94:

Originally Posted By Keith_J:
When the NFA was enacted, the common individual arm was a bolt action.



That is absolute bullshit.


M1903A3 The Thompson M1? 1938. But it was not issued to all soldiers.


Hm.. Me thinks Keith_J is right. The 1903 was the standard issue infantry weapon on the time (1934). the M1 Garand (which the NFA does not even address) was not issued till 1938 at the earliest. The Thompson SMG was not standard issue. *

* hm.. thinking.. the army did not really buy/issue the thompson enmasse till ww2, as did the british. I'm sure the army HAD thompsons in inventory in the 1930s, but were probably only in limited issue to select units. Not sure.



BARs, however, were common issue, having been adopted in 1918. Thompsons were rare, true. And 03A3s weren't around yet, it would have been the standard M1903, but the Army was only a couple years from adopting the M1 rifle.
And there were M1917 and M1919 MGs....
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 12:03:02 PM EDT
Please explain to me WHAT THE FACK does the US Military's preference in small arms in 1934 have to do with the 1934 NFA?



This is the stupidest argument I have seen posted this week.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 12:05:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Blackmagic94:

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Originally Posted By Blackmagic94:

Originally Posted By Keith_J:
When the NFA was enacted, the common individual arm was a bolt action.



That is absolute bullshit.


M1903A3 The Thompson M1? 1938. But it was not issued to all soldiers.



Where are you getting this shit from? Where did the 2A address this issue in 1775?

The Thompson was available to civilians prior to the NFA.


Hollywood Al Capone movies...
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 12:06:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JS_280:
I'll donate to whoever challenges it.

I'm still waiting on the "Official ARFCOM NFA Class Action Lawsuit" thread to appear...


I will as well. $100 at first and up to $1000 if the case advances.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 12:09:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Blackmagic94:
Please explain to me WHAT THE FACK does the US Military's preference in small arms in 1934 have to do with the 1934 NFA?



This is the stupidest argument I have seen posted this week.


Read Miller.

The way to go after it is using tax case law. IIRC it is illegal to use taxes to ban something, or was at one time. Of course, you can get you McCulloch v. Maryland on.

"The power to tax is the power to destroy."
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 12:11:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By Blackmagic94:
Please explain to me WHAT THE FACK does the US Military's preference in small arms in 1934 have to do with the 1934 NFA?



This is the stupidest argument I have seen posted this week.


Read Miller.

The way to go after it is using tax case law. IIRC it is illegal to use taxes to ban something, or was at one time. Of course, you can get you McCulloch v. Maryland on.

"The power to tax is the power to destroy."



Interesting, a multi approach might help. Its unconsiitutional because of A, B, and C
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 12:13:44 PM EDT
Remember, this isn't a gun case. It is a tax case. Refer to the guns as a taxed commodity. "Items."
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 12:16:46 PM EDT
How much was $200 back in 1934 compared to today, in the thousands maybe?
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 12:25:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By armoredsaint:
How much was $200 back in 1934 compared to today, in the thousands maybe?


$3,171.59 (2007)
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 12:47:55 PM EDT
Isn't there case law, something about a furniture manufacturer, in which is was found that a tax that is not based on raising revenue, but simply to discourage an activity is not a legal tax?

If so, that phrase, where the ATF themselves admit that the purpose of the NFA $200 taxes was to discourage, or prevent, manufacture of NFA firearms.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 12:51:31 PM EDT
There are all kinds of issues with the law, but the fact that the BATFE is saying it was to defacto ban, is a huge fuck up on their part now.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 12:52:18 PM EDT
I agree you will never get NFA weapons unregulated. The best bet or even the first step would be to have the 1986 law repealed. After you get the 1986 ban tossed out then you could try to go further. But it could have a reverse effect and they could adjust the tax for inflation. could end up with 1000.00 dollar transfers.

Link Posted: 7/22/2008 1:01:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BCWMFG:
I agree you will never get NFA weapons unregulated. The best bet or even the first step would be to have the 1986 law repealed. After you get the 1986 ban tossed out then you could try to go further. But it could have a reverse effect and they could adjust the tax for inflation. could end up with 1000.00 dollar transfers.




Why bother, when the entire law was framed as a defacto ban, which would be are arguement on the 1986 law as well. Go for the source,

Miller vs US.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 1:04:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Originally Posted By Blackmagic94:

Originally Posted By Keith_J:
When the NFA was enacted, the common individual arm was a bolt action.



That is absolute bullshit.


M1903A3 The Thompson M1? 1938. But it was not issued to all soldiers.


Thompson SMG was the first thing that popped into my head...
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 1:05:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/22/2008 1:09:47 PM EDT by JellyBelly]

Originally Posted By Keith_J:
When the NFA was enacted, the common individual arm was a bolt action pump or single shot shotgun.


Pre-WW2 most homes had subsistence-living arms to put food on the table. Birds, deer, and small game fed more families than anything other critters. Shotguns have the versatility to take all of these types of animals, plus defend the home nicely.

Around that time pump action .22s and lever action centerfires took a lot of game, too. Bolt actions were present, but not like today.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 1:07:41 PM EDT
I am more against the 86 ban than against NFA...
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 1:08:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GUNSFORHIRE:
I think it would be better to get the 1986 law repealed ...they will never get a law where the NFA type weapons unregulated...now to have M16's at $800.00 or MP5's at $1300.00 with a 200.00 stamp...I am ALL OVER THAT IDEA!!!

Just imagine the revenue the .GOV could bring in..In a years time they could balance the budget..Just on my purchases!


+1 your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 1:10:15 PM EDT
also when the milita was called to turn out they were to muster with the arms of the day. where as the 2nd ammendment is an individual right we have the right to own full autos so we might be able to answer muster with the arms of the day. nfa be damned. 1968 gun control act be damned etc,,,, Lots of time to hash this out in the courts.. best way to eliminate all rights is to have a hitler youth corp. from teaching in the schools. 2 generations of rights erosion and you have a brave new world. with no individual rights. Jmo.. got to get rid of us old farts that still remember what freedom really means.. too many dont know what freedom really means.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 1:13:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By kap_x:

Originally Posted By peekay:
2nd amendment alone is grounds enough.


+1, we should need no other points of argument.


sadly there is enough stupid people where that isn't the case
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 1:25:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Blackmagic94:
Please explain to me WHAT THE FACK does the US Military's preference in small arms in 1934 have to do with the 1934 NFA?

This is the stupidest argument I have seen posted this week.


By my calculations... it's exactly as relevant as the BATFE's handbook purporting to be authoritative on the subject of Congress' "intent"

Link Posted: 7/22/2008 1:28:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/22/2008 1:29:05 PM EDT by Fingerpicker]
No offense, but this will not happen.

I am as involved in the grassroots RKBA movement as anyone here, and certainly moreso than most - so please do not assume that I am a "wet-blanket" for no reason.

But, look at the history of our movment. Where is the 1934 Group, if anyone here remembers them, now? Gone. Little interest. How many here, who are NRA/GOA/JPFO/SAC/grassroots members are currently allied with NFAOA? I would bet the number is very low (I am not a member, by the way). I would bet that their membership is low.

These groups have been at it for years. In my view, the NFA will be with us as long as this country continues to exist. Of course, I could be wrong - as I have been more times than I care to admit.

Hughes, Lautenberg, most parts of the GCA and '89 in its entirety (along with innumerable administrative rulings by ATF)? Sure. I do believe that some of these can be won and will be.

The NFA, though? No. I don't think so.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 1:30:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By legalese77:

Originally Posted By Blackmagic94:
Please explain to me WHAT THE FACK does the US Military's preference in small arms in 1934 have to do with the 1934 NFA?

This is the stupidest argument I have seen posted this week.


By my calculations... it's exactly as relevant as the BATFE's handbook purporting to be authoritative on the subject of Congress' "intent"




It has much more of a relevance on the subject that a person opinion of a fellow member as they are the governing body of firearms and are able to create law outside of the legislative branch of government.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 1:40:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Originally Posted By Blackmagic94:

Originally Posted By Keith_J:
When the NFA was enacted, the common individual arm was a bolt action.



That is absolute bullshit.


M1903A3 The Thompson M1? 1938. But it was not issued to all soldiers.


Thompson submachinegun was marketed to civilians starting in 1921. Among others.

It's not a coincidence that the Valentine's Day Massacre happened in 1929, and the NFA started in 1934.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 1:45:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GUNSFORHIRE:
I think it would be better to get the 1986 law repealed ...they will never get a law where the NFA type weapons unregulated...now to have M16's at $800.00 or MP5's at $1300.00 with a 200.00 stamp...I am ALL OVER THAT IDEA!!!

Just imagine the revenue the .GOV could bring in..In a years time they could balance the budget..Just on my purchases!


Actually, that is a GENIUS idea. It would probably cause at least some internal conflict among politicians. Some want to keep automatics off the street, but others would be salivating at such an increase in govt. revenue...
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 1:47:56 PM EDT
I wouldn't mind paying the $200 tax personally. As long as I get my F/A.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 1:50:26 PM EDT
I still think that the only gun control we need is a list of prohibited possessors. No CCW, no NFA, no NICS, nothing. But if you get caught with a gun after you go on the list, you get a cell which you will grow old and die in.

That sounds fair to me.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 1:51:07 PM EDT
Sweet gibbly-gibblets! Rock on man! If I had money I would donate....
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 1:55:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
I still think that the only gun control we need is a list of prohibited possessors. No CCW, no NFA, no NICS, nothing. But if you get caught with a gun after you go on the list, you get a cell which you will grow old and die in.

That sounds fair to me.




The problem is gonna be "Who goes on the list?"

Link Posted: 7/22/2008 2:01:33 PM EDT
Dunno yet. Non-Resident Aliens, people tied up in the legal system, convicted felons, drug addicts.

Of course, I wouldn't go for it without complete rights restoration for people who are cleaned up for a while.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 2:04:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/22/2008 2:07:48 PM EDT by timb3]

Originally Posted By Blackmagic94:
Please explain to me WHAT THE FACK does the US Military's preference in small arms in 1934 have to do with the 1934 NFA?



This is the stupidest argument I have seen posted this week.



+1

Regardless of any of the court precident crap having to do with what is "common use", the constitution doesn't say shit about common use. It says "shall not be infringed". Period.

I think the best ways to go after NFA is both the 2nd amendment AND the punitive tax aspect.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 3:21:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/22/2008 3:22:33 PM EDT by 1Andy2]

Originally Posted By Keith_J:
When the NFA was enacted, the common individual arm was a bolt action.


sub guns had been around since WWI.

eta: And the BAR had been around since 1917.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 3:55:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NoAim:

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Originally Posted By Blackmagic94:

Originally Posted By Keith_J:
When the NFA was enacted, the common individual arm was a bolt action.



That is absolute bullshit.


M1903A3 The Thompson M1? 1938. But it was not issued to all soldiers.


Thompson submachinegun was marketed to civilians starting in 1921. Among others.

It's not a coincidence that the Valentine's Day Massacre happened in 1929, and the NFA started in 1934.




DING DING DING

The notion of a bolt gun being common is about as facking retarded as Obama is smart.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top