Is the National Firearms Act unconstitutional?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Is the National Firearms Act unconstitutional? (Page 1 of 3)

Posted: 10/11/2005 7:36:41 AM EDT

A little background first:

For those who aren't aware, the National Firearms Act of 1934 was the first Federal firearms law. At the time the law was passed, even the people who wrote the law agreed that the Federal Government had no authority to write a general prohibition law.

Therefore, they wrote the law as a "tax act", modeling it after the same scheme they had used earlier to outlaw drugs in the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914. The basic idea is that the Feds can tax anything they want, and the tax can be any amount they want. Therefore, the Feds can effectively prohibit something just by requiring a license and placing a tax on it that is so high that nobody would ever pay it.

Whether the government can create backdoor prohibitions is one issue. Another issue is whether it violates the Second Amendment which says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A small tax on a firearm might not be an infringement, but it seems to me that a large tax certainly would be an infringement.

So how say you all? In your view of the Second Amendment, is it an unconstitutional infringement to require a license and the payment of a tax before someone can own an automatic weapon? Or is this requirement perfectly reasonable and therefore constitutional because the weapons are so fearsome (or whatever other reason you might choose)? I am looking for your personal opinion here more than court decisions, but you can supply whatever you want to justify your reasoning.

Is the National Firearms Act unconstitutional?

Posted: 10/11/2005 7:41:44 AM EDT

[#1]

HELL YES!!!!!!
I want my chance at full auto goodness without gettin gouged thousands of dollars

Posted: 10/11/2005 7:41:56 AM EDT

[#2]

Unfortunetly no it is not as it's not a prohibition on ownership of the items that fall under it. It is a tax measure/interstate commerce issue and as such is within the scope of the federalgovernment to do. The 86 MG ban on the other hand is blatently unconstitutional.

Posted: 10/11/2005 7:43:25 AM EDT

[#3]

Well, of course I disagree with it in general/broad terms.

However I would not want my neighbor to have 100 pounds of some unstable explosive he, on a whim, mail ordered from a clearing house, sitting in his garage, one day blow up, because he started his lawn mower.

So, unstable explosives should licensed.

Edit: I'm refering to the Destructive Devices part of the NFA.

Posted: 10/11/2005 7:43:27 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
HELL YES!!!!!!
I want my chance at full auto goodness without gettin gouged thousands of dollars

The NFA isn't whats making MGs cost so much it's the 86MG ban that is by creating a collectors market. The number of transferable MGs is only something like 250,000 because of that ban, not because of the NFA.

Posted: 10/11/2005 7:43:33 AM EDT

[#5]

Of course it's unconstuitutional. And you don't even have to get to the Second Amendment issues. It exceeds Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause.

Too bad the Supreme Court is too stupid or corrupt to acknowledge this simple fact.

Posted: 10/11/2005 7:44:20 AM EDT

[#6]

There was a district court case in the 90's that said the 86 ban nullified the NFA, because the latter imposed a tax and the former made it impossible to comply with the tax.

Posted: 10/11/2005 7:44:50 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Unfortunetly no it is not as it's not a prohibition on ownership of the items that fall under it. It is a tax measure/interstate commerce issue and as such is within the scope of the federalgovernment to do. The 86 MG ban on the other hand is blatently unconstitutional.

Shall NOT be INFRINGED...

Charging me $200, registering said weapon/device with the governmetn, and making me wait for months and months until the government finally gets around to my application and feels like it is infringing on my rights.

Posted: 10/11/2005 7:44:54 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
HELL YES!!!!!!
I want my chance at full auto goodness without gettin gouged thousands of dollars

The NFA isn't whats making MGs cost so much it's the 86MG ban that is by creating a collectors market. The number of transferable MGs is only something like 250,000 because of that ban, not because of the NFA.

What exactly are the details of the 86 ban?

Posted: 10/11/2005 7:45:03 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Unfortunetly no it is not as it's not a prohibition on ownership of the items that fall under it. It is a tax measure/interstate commerce issue and as such is within the scope of the federalgovernment to do. The 86 MG ban on the other hand is blatently unconstitutional.

I agree.

Posted: 10/11/2005 7:45:34 AM EDT

[#10]

It was a cap on supply.

No machine guns made after 1986 can be transferred to private citizens.

Posted: 10/11/2005 7:45:49 AM EDT

[#11]

Let's put it this way: A $200 transfer tax on a sawed-off shotgun in 1934 is the equivalent of a $2,854 tax today.

Does that strike you as a "reasonable" tax?

And since when do taxes require fingerprinting? Or permission from the local head of law enforcement?

Hell yes it's a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Posted: 10/11/2005 7:46:23 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Unfortunetly no it is not as it's not a prohibition on ownership of the items that fall under it. It is a tax measure/interstate commerce issue and as such is within the scope of the federalgovernment to do. The 86 MG ban on the other hand is blatently unconstitutional.

+1 I agree.

Posted: 10/11/2005 7:47:31 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Unfortunetly no it is not as it's not a prohibition on ownership of the items that fall under it. It is a tax measure/interstate commerce issue and as such is within the scope of the federalgovernment to do. The 86 MG ban on the other hand is blatently unconstitutional.

I agree.

Hi. Reread the bill of rights and tell me it's not unconstitutional. The words "shall not be infringed" are clear as day in it. The NFA requires you to seek the federal and local government's permission to own any such weapons/devices. That probably fucked a lot of black people back in the day as there was no way in hell a local sheriff or any one else would approve a transfer. Like Kbaker said above me, an equivilant tax to $2,234 in modern dollars back in 1934 would have kept such things out of the reach of most individuals.

Posted: 10/11/2005 7:48:17 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
It was a cap on supply.

No machine guns made after 1986 can be transferred to private citizens.

Registered, not made. That guy who found a original* Thompson in his wall while remodeling. It wasn't on the NFA registry, nor could he register it to take legal possession, yet it was forsure made before 1986.

*I assume it was from the inital production run of 20,000(?).

Posted: 10/11/2005 7:48:44 AM EDT

[#15]

hell yeah, it infringes on my rights!

see sig line!

Posted: 10/11/2005 7:51:27 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Unfortunetly no it is not as it's not a prohibition on ownership of the items that fall under it. It is a tax measure/interstate commerce issue and as such is within the scope of the federalgovernment to do. The 86 MG ban on the other hand is blatently unconstitutional.

Where it is not a prohibition is debatable. In the case of drugs, the exact same scheme was clearly a prohibition. It became a prohibition when they made the tax so high that no one would pay and required a license -- and then refused to issue any licenses.

If they can keep you from legally buying something just by refusing to issue you a license, or jacking the tax up so high you can't pay it, then what's the real difference? Is it constitutional only because the tax is not thousands of dollars?

In any event, the Second Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Requiring you to do anything like pay a tax or get a license seems like an infringement to me. Maybe not a huge one, depending on the circumstances, but still an infringement. I guess one question is how big the infringement has to be before it becomes an "infringement".

BTW, did you vote? I don't seem to see your opinion recorded in the poll? Thanks.

Posted: 10/11/2005 7:51:52 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Let's put it this way: A $200 transfer tax on a sawed-off shotgun in 1934 is the equivalent of a $2,854 tax today.

Does that strike you as a "reasonable" tax?

And since when do taxes require fingerprinting? Or permission from the local head of law enforcement?

Hell yes it's a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Good point.

Posted: 10/11/2005 7:53:14 AM EDT

[#18]

As noted in John Ross's excellent novel, "Unintended Consequences", Judge Heartsill Ragon, declared the NFA of 34 "un-constitutional".

But then the Feds apealled his ruling from the Western District of Arkansas court and Miller's attorney never bothered to show for the Supreme Court case (Miller vs USA).

The prosecuter LIED to the justices, said no sawed off shotguns were used by our military in WWI and the justices bought the LIE.

IMO, the NFA of '34 is un-constitutional because Judge Ragon's ruling was absolutely dead on the money. (IIRC he was WWI vet and knew that the troopers of WWI sawed the barrels off thier shotguns and squashed them in a vise to use for "trench-clearing" during the war)

my 2 cents on this topic,
Mike

ps - the true intent of the founding fathers IMO was that the citizenry of the United States should always have the ability to possess the same small arms in use by the common soldier, for this is the only way to prevent a tyrannical government from usurping the will "of the People", by greater force of arms.

Posted: 10/11/2005 7:53:16 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Well, of course I disagree with it in general/broad terms.

However I would not want my neighbor to have 100 pounds of some unstable explosive he, on a whim, mail ordered from a clearing house, sitting in his garage, one day blow up, because he started his lawn mower.

So, unstable explosives should licensed.

Edit: I'm refering to the Destructive Devices part of the NFA.

I agree with you on the unstable explosives part. I don't see them as included in the Second Amendment, anyway. What about the part that keeps you from going down to Walmart and picking up a Thompson?

Posted: 10/11/2005 7:53:55 AM EDT

[#20]

yes it is.

all of the other stuff aside, i believe there was a ruling from the SCrOTUS that said the .gov could not raise/levee taxes against, or require permits for, the practice of an ammended right because in doing so they then had the power to eliminate that right.

ironically enough, that's EXACTLY what the NFA was. they were using a tax to make it difficult to purchase MG's. even if the NFA did not take place in the era of the Great Depression, $200 bucks was still way too much for the average joe to just plop down.

it was social programming through taxation. similar to our cigarette taxes, only there is no tobacco ammendment.

p.s.: i know there was a SC ruling that said this, but i'll never be able to find it. if someone else knows what i'm talking about, please help a brotha' out before i get BS'd back to the stone-age.

Posted: 10/11/2005 7:56:30 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Let's put it this way: A $200 transfer tax on a sawed-off shotgun in 1934 is the equivalent of a $2,854 tax today.

Does that strike you as a "reasonable" tax?

And since when do taxes require fingerprinting? Or permission from the local head of law enforcement?

Hell yes it's a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Look I think you guys are missing something. Congress does not ahve the power to out right ban anything. They do have the power to tax it, or control it's movment in interstate commerce.

When you fillout a form 1 or a form 4 what you are filling out is an application for a tax stamp, in order to get that tax stamp you have to jump through hoops. Those hoops include fingerprinting and a photograph and a CLEO signature stating that the item the tax stamop is for is not illegal or restricted in your city/state/county.

The ATF CAN NOT disclose what you paid that tax stamp for to local LE or anyone else, they can only confirm that you indeed did pay for that tax stamp. What that tax stamp is paid for is privelaged tax information. It is not accessable through FOIA requests or anything else. Technicly that information can not be shared with anyone at all or any other LE agnecy or government agency.

In the case of the NFA the government is within thier abilities to regulate items that fall under the control of the NFA.

And yes as somone pointed out the NFA was in fact ruled unconstitutional, but not the whole of the act. I'll dig up the case, just give me a second. Here is the case US V. ROCK ISLAND ARMORY, INC

In sum, since enactment of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), the Secretary has refused to accept any tax payments to make or transfer a machinegun made after May 19, 1986, to approve any such making or transfer, or to register any such machinegun. As applied to machineguns made and possessed after May 19, 1986, the registration and other requirements of the National Firearms Act, Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, no longer serve any revenue purpose, and are impliedly repealed or are unconstitutional. Accordingly, Counts 1(a) and (b), 2, and 3 of the superseding indictment are

DISMISSED.

What they said was that since the .gov was no longer taking registration and tax payments certain aspects of the NFA were no longer revenue generating measures and wee as such, unconstitutional. Do yerselves a favor and read the whole decision. there is some interesting stuff in there like this

As applied to machineguns alleged to be possessed after May 19, 1986, prosecutions may no longer proceed under 26 U.S.C. § 5861. This is because the National Firearms Act is part of the Internal Revenue Code, and its provisions — including registration of machineguns possessed after May 19, 1986 — are valid only to the extent they aid in the collection of tax revenue. Since BATF would not register and accept tax payments for any machinegun after May 19, 1986, registration of machineguns made and possessed after that date no longer serves any revenue purpose, and such registration requirements are invalid. Since 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) is interpreted to ban registration and taxation of machineguns under the National Firearms Act, § 922(o) effectively repeals such registration and taxation provisions. Congress has no enumerated power to require registration of firearms. However, since registration of firearms may assist in the collection of revenue, Congress passed the National Firearms Act in 1934 pursuant to its power to tax. Section 922(o) destroys the constitutional basis of registration.

And even this

In the 1934 hearings, Attorney General Homer S. Cummings explained in detail how the NFA would be based on the tax power. National Firearms Act: Hearings Before the House Committee on Ways and Means, 73rd Cong., 2d Sess., 6 (1934). Cummings denied that machineguns could be banned, because "we have no inherent police power to go into certain localities and deal with local crime. It is only when we can reach those things under ... the power of taxation, that we can act." Id. at 8.

When Congressman Harold Knutson asked "why should we permit the manufacture, that is, permit the sale of the machine guns to any one outside of the several branches of the Government," Congressman Sumners suggested "that this is a revenue measure and you have to make it possible at least in theory for these things to move in order to get internal revenue?" Id. at 13-14. Cummings agreed: "That is the answer exactly." Id. at 14. The following dialogue ensued:

Attorney General CUMMINGS.... If we made a statute absolutely forbidding any human being to have a machine gun, you might say there is some constitutional question involved. But when you say, "we will tax the machine gun," ... you are easily within the law.

Mr. LEWIS. In other words, it does not amount to prohibition, but allows of regulation.

Attorney General CUMMINGS. That is the idea. We have studied that very carefully.

Id. at 19.

The National Firearms Act was originally passed as a taxing statute under the authority of Nigro v. United States, 276 U.S. 332, 48 S.Ct. 388, 72 L.Ed. 600 (1928). See National Firearms Act: Hearings Before the Committee on Ways and Means, supra, at 101-02, 162. Upholding the Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act, Nigro noted:

"In interpreting the act, we must assume that it is a taxing measure, for otherwise it would be no law at all. If it is a mere act for the purpose of regulating and restraining the purchase of the opiate and other drugs, it is beyond the power of Congress and must be regarded as invalid....

Now the oddball hting is the last little bit of that above quote. I'll change it around a bit.

"In interpreting the act, we must assume that it is a taxing measure, for otherwise it would be no law at all. If it is a mere act for the purpose of regulating and restraining the purchase of Machineguns and other weapons, it is beyond the power of Congress and must be regarded as invalid...."

Interesting how when it's drugs it would be invalid as a law, but when it comes to guns it is kosher(the 86ban).

The problem is not the NFA the problem is the 922(o).

Posted: 10/11/2005 8:02:29 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Look I think you guys are missing something. Congress does not ahve the power to out right ban anything. They do have the power to tax it, or control it's movment in interstate commerce.

I didn't miss that. A two dollar tax isn't much of an issue. But if they required a $5,000 tax on every round of ammunition, isn't that effectively a prohibition? How about if they require a license and then refuse to issue you one?

Posted: 10/11/2005 8:02:56 AM EDT

[#23]

The $200 tax stamp and background check seem unreasonable but I could live with that.

But what I don't like is how I cannot buy brand new 3rd gen Glock 18s, HK UMP-45s, FN P90s (non-sporter model) or a new M4 full auto in Michigan, or how I cannot purchase a sound suppressor for any of my firearms. Everytime I watch Stargate SG-1 or Stargate Atlantis, it BOILS my blood to not be able to legally own a full-auto P90

In some countries, sound suppressors are CHEAP and readily available to help reduce noise pollution.

Here, people bitch and whine about noisy gun ranges. The obvious solution is to promote the use of sound suppressors at ranges. Have the EPA mandate a maximum noise level with a sound suppressor on a firearm and require "mufflers" for firearms!

Posted: 10/11/2005 8:03:00 AM EDT

[#24]

No, it isn't.

We can rail against it and cite legal history, precedent, framers' intent, etc. ad nauseum, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional.

For better or worse, the ONLY thing that makes it unconstitutional (in any real, practical terms) is when the majority of nine robed lifetime-appointees in DC decide it is unconstitutional...

Even more reason such appointments are so important, IMHO...

Posted: 10/11/2005 8:07:48 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Unfortunetly no it is not as it's not a prohibition on ownership of the items that fall under it. It is a tax measure/interstate commerce issue and as such is within the scope of the federalgovernment to do. The 86 MG ban on the other hand is blatently unconstitutional.

Yes it is. Do you realize how much $200 was back in 1934? Registration of firearms is defintley unconstitutional.

Posted: 10/11/2005 8:08:45 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
No, it isn't.

We can rail against it and cite legal history, precedent, framers' intent, etc. ad nauseum, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional.

For better or worse, the ONLY thing that makes it unconstitutional (in any real, practical terms) is when the majority of nine robed lifetime-appointees in DC decide it is unconstitutional...

Even more reason such appointments are so important, IMHO...

I am aware that the courts currently think it is constitutional. Their reasoning seems a bit strained at times to me, though. I also think that "shall not be infringed" part is fairly clear, whatever you may think of the taxation scheme.

I was really more interested in whether people agreed with the current rulings.

Posted: 10/11/2005 8:10:33 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
For better or worse, the ONLY thing that makes it unconstitutional (in any real, practical terms) is when the majority of nine robed lifetime-appointees in DC decide it is unconstitutional...

Umm, no.

WE decide what is and what isn't unconstitutional. For right now, we've delegated that power to the Supreme Court, but at some point in the future we might very well decide that enough is enough.

Not that I expect us to.

Posted: 10/11/2005 8:12:29 AM EDT

[#28]

What I wana know is who are the 9 wormie pieces of shit that voted no?

COMMIE BASTAGES

Posted: 10/11/2005 8:13:36 AM EDT

[#29]

Just to muddy the waters here a little. For those of you who think the NFA is constitutional and not a violation of the Second Amendment ---

Would you feel the same way if the act required a license and the payment of a $200 tax in order to buy something like a Ruger 10/22? That would at least double the cost of the weapon and make you wait 90 days or so just to get a squirrel gun. Wouldn't that be an infringement?

Posted: 10/11/2005 8:14:37 AM EDT

[#30]

"...Shall not be infringed..."

A punative tax and registration scheme like the NFA of '34 is most certainly an "infringment". As are the changes made by the GCA of '68, the Bush ban, and the recent import restrictions. Trying to claim authority under the Commerce Clause is abuse of the clause itself. This was meant to prevent one State from setting import tarrifs or restrictions on other States. It was never meant to be used as justification for this kind of crap, and in fact, the Founders specificaly warned that it could be used as such.

Posted: 10/11/2005 8:16:04 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Unfortunetly no it is not as it's not a prohibition on ownership of the items that fall under it. It is a tax measure/interstate commerce issue and as such is within the scope of the federalgovernment to do. The 86 MG ban on the other hand is blatently unconstitutional.

Yes it is. Do you realize how much $200 was back in 1934? Registration of firearms is defintley unconstitutional.

It doesn't matter how ,much it was back then. You guys are missing the point. The govern,ment is acting within thier power to tax and regulate commerce. It doesn't matter how much that tax is now or what it was back then that has no bearing on if the NFA as done is/was unconstitutional. Also the registration of firearms as part of a tax record is not unconstitutional. Because it is not a publicly viewable tax roll and it is not information that can legaly be disclosed to anyone other then the owner of said weapon what eweapon the tax was paid for.

Get over it guys the NFA IS constitutional. If yer gunna get all in ahuff over a law get in a huff over the blatently unconstitutional 922(o).

Posted: 10/11/2005 8:17:00 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
"...Shall not be infringed..."

A punative tax and registration scheme like the NFA of '34 is most certainly an "infringment". As are the changes made by the GCA of '68, the Bush ban, and the recent import restrictions. Trying to claim authority under the Commerce Clause is abuse of the clause itself. This was meant to prevent one State from setting import tarrifs or restrictions on other States. It was never meant to be used as justification for this kind of crap, and in fact, the Founders specificaly warned that it could be used as such.

About the commerse clause.. that always bothered me. As I see it, it exists as a mean to resolve disputes between squabeling states, not herd the populace.

Posted: 10/11/2005 8:19:07 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Unfortunetly no it is not as it's not a prohibition on ownership of the items that fall under it. It is a tax measure/interstate commerce issue and as such is within the scope of the federalgovernment to do. The 86 MG ban on the other hand is blatently unconstitutional.

Yes it is. Do you realize how much $200 was back in 1934? Registration of firearms is defintley unconstitutional.

It doesn't matter how ,much it was back then. You guys are missing the point. The govern,ment is acting within thier power to tax and regulate commerce. It doesn't matter how much that tax is now or what it was back then that has no bearing on if the NFA as done is/was unconstitutional. Also the registration of firearms as part of a tax record is not unconstitutional. Because it is not a publicly viewable tax roll and it is not information that can legaly be disclosed to anyone other then the owner of said weapon what eweapon the tax was paid for.

Get over it guys the NFA IS constitutional. If yer gunna get all in ahuff over a law get in a huff over the blatently unconstitutional 922(o).

Wrong. I'll let Walter do all the typing though. worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35443

Posted: 10/11/2005 8:19:39 AM EDT

[#34]

No the NFA is not unconstitutional, it doesn't restrict purchase and ownership of NFA weapons, it only taxs them, SCOTUS ruled several times that this was within the authority of Congress to do so, much like liquor & tobacco is taxed. Interestingly enough, the NFA was used to ban MaryJ, that act was later ruled unconstitutional & replaced with a new drug law in 1970.

What is unconstitutional is the GCA of 1968 and the portion of the 1986 FOPA banning future machinegun manufacture.

Posted: 10/11/2005 8:19:56 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

It doesn't matter how ,much it was back then. You guys are missing the point. The govern,ment is acting within thier power to tax and regulate commerce. It doesn't matter how much that tax is now or what it was back then that has no bearing on if the NFA as done is/was unconstitutional.

So if they placed a tax of $100,000 on every firearm, that would not be an infringement under the Second Amendment? How about if they flatly refused to issue any licenses?

Also the registration of firearms as part of a tax record is not unconstitutional. Because it is not a publicly viewable tax roll and it is not information that can legaly be disclosed to anyone other then the owner of said weapon what eweapon the tax was paid for.

I don't see where that has anything to do with the Constitution.

Get over it guys the NFA IS constitutional. If yer gunna get all in ahuff over a law get in a huff over the blatently unconstitutional 922(o).

What if they charged you $100,000 every time you wanted to buy a .22 rifle? That would pretty much eliminate your gun ownership, wouldn't it?

Posted: 10/11/2005 8:23:39 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Get over it guys the NFA IS constitutional. If yer gunna get all in ahuff over a law get in a huff over the blatently unconstitutional 922(o).

To that I say, it violates the spirit of the Constitution and should undergo "jury nullification."

Let us tax all paper the same way as title2 firearms are.

Posted: 10/11/2005 8:25:07 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
No the NFA is not unconstitutional, it doesn't restrict purchase and ownership of NFA weapons, it only taxs them,

If you require someone to pay a tax and get a license to own it, how is that not a restriction of purchase and ownership? Especially if the tax is way more than you can pay.

SCOTUS ruled several times that this was within the authority of Congress to do so, much like liquor & tobacco is taxed.

There is no amendment to the Constitution that says explicitly that your right to own liquor and tobacco "shall not be infringed".

Interestingly enough, the NFA was used to ban MaryJ, that act was later ruled unconstitutional & replaced with a new drug law in 1970.

Nitpicking on your wording -- the same idea was used for both. It began with the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914. The NFA didn't cover MJ itself. The Marihuana Tax Act was declared unconstitutional because it required people to have the marijuana in hand before they applied for the tax. Therefore, if you applied for the tax you were automatically incriminating yourself. I don't think the NFA rules are the same so that reasoning wouldn't apply.

Posted: 10/11/2005 8:28:26 AM EDT

[#38]

tagged for later

Posted: 10/11/2005 8:36:24 AM EDT

[#39]

Let me clear up one really big misconception about the NFA thing I've seenit mentioned a couple times already in this thread

You do not need a license to own or posses an NFA item. Maybe in some states due to state law but you don't need a license at all from the feeral government. There is no license execpt to manufacture/sell them as a business.

Also you are not legaly obligated to show the paperwork at all to any LE. In most states NFa items are illegal, with a defense to prosectution being that the person in possession/owns them has complaied with the federal law. TX is one of those states, Wisconsin is one of those states. IIRC AZ is one of those states as well. So having the paperwork to show will keep yer ass out of jail and yer weapons in yer possession instead of having to go to jail and wait for the courts to clear up yer legal possession/ownership status.

Posted: 10/11/2005 8:43:41 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Let me clear up one really big misconception about the NFA thing I've seenit mentioned a couple times already in this thread

You do not need a license to own or posses an NFA item. There is no license execpt to manufacture/sell them a s a business.

If you are required to pay a tax and get a receipt that is, in effect, a license. They can simply refuse to take your money and issue you a receipt -- therefore, no license, and you are prohibited from owning them just because some bureaucrat didn't like the way you parted your hair. And they have done just that in other areas.

Also you are not legaly obligated to show the paperwork at all to any LE. In most states NFa items are illegal, with a defense to prosectution being that the person in possession/owns them has complaied with the federal law. TX is one of those states, Wisconsin is one of those states. IIRC AZ is one of those states as well. So having the paperwork to show will keep yer ass out of jail and yer weapons in yer possession instead of having to go to jail and wait for the courts to clear up yer legal possession/ownership status.

So, if you don't have a piece of Federal paper in hand you could go to jail. (We won't call it a "license", will we? Call it a "receipt", instead. But who cares? It is jail for not having the piece of paper, whatever we call it.)

Would you feel the same thing was reasonable if they required it for single-shot .22s? That is, you are out hunting squirrels, get busted and have to spend some time in police custody while your wife hunts for your Federal tax receipt.

Posted: 10/11/2005 8:43:51 AM EDT

[#41]

Um the tax stamp is a defacto registration certificate.

The ATFE knows what you have and you better have that tax stamp when shooting your NFA weapon at the range.

It is unconstitutional. NFA weapons that DO NOT TRAVEL IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE are still registered with the ATFE (on forms) and taxed.

And the CLEO sign off is nowhere in the NFA so yes the the NFA regulations are unconstitutional. All it takes is an anti gun sheriff to say "No signoff for you!"

CRC

Posted: 10/11/2005 8:48:04 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Let me clear up one really big misconception about the NFA thing I've seenit mentioned a couple times already in this thread

You do not need a license to own or posses an NFA item. Maybe in some states due to state law but you don't need a license at all from the feeral government. There is no license execpt to manufacture/sell them as a business.

Also you are not legaly obligated to show the paperwork at all to any LE. In most states NFa items are illegal, with a defense to prosectution being that the person in possession/owns them has complaied with the federal law. TX is one of those states, Wisconsin is one of those states. IIRC AZ is one of those states as well. So having the paperwork to show will keep yer ass out of jail and yer weapons in yer possession instead of having to go to jail and wait for the courts to clear up yer legal possession/ownership status.

So you would be equally at ease with the FedGov requiring a $200 tax stamp for each post you make on the Internet?

Posted: 10/11/2005 8:54:05 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
So you would be equally at ease with the FedGov requiring a $200 tax stamp for each post you make on the Internet?

Poor srgtar15

Posted: 10/11/2005 8:55:48 AM EDT

[#44]

From the US Code itself:

j) to transport, deliver, or receive any firearm in interstate commerce which has not been registered as required by this chapter; or "

So the NFA is registration.

Posted: 10/11/2005 8:55:53 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Unfortunetly no it is not as it's not a prohibition on ownership of the items that fall under it. It is a tax measure/interstate commerce issue and as such is within the scope of the federalgovernment to do. The 86 MG ban on the other hand is blatently unconstitutional.

Many would consider a Federal tax on any weapon (suitable for militia use) to be an "infrigement" on the RTK&BA.

Posted: 10/11/2005 8:57:53 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Unfortunetly no it is not as it's not a prohibition on ownership of the items that fall under it. It is a tax measure/interstate commerce issue and as such is within the scope of the federalgovernment to do. The 86 MG ban on the other hand is blatently unconstitutional.

Many would consider a Federal tax on any weapon (suitable for militia use) to be an "infrigement" on the RTK&BA.

Yes, it is worth noting that the 2A says "shall not be infringed". It doesn't say "shall not be prohibited". Big difference.

Posted: 10/11/2005 8:59:21 AM EDT

[#47]

It is still unconstitutional because it is not just a straight tax.

There is already a flat tax on guns and ammo (about 11%).

The NFA leads a lot of it up to the 'Secretary' to proscribe regulations, some of which are unconstitutional (CLEO signoff, ect).

CRC

Posted: 10/11/2005 9:00:41 AM EDT

[#48]

§ 5841. Registration of firearms

Release date: 2005-08-31

(a) Central registry
The Secretary shall maintain a central registry of all firearms in the United States which are not in the possession or under the control of the United States. This registry shall be known as the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. The registry shall include—
(1) identification of the firearm;
(2) date of registration; and
(3) identification and address of person entitled to possession of the firearm.
(b) By whom registered
Each manufacturer, importer, and maker shall register each firearm he manufactures, imports, or makes. Each firearm transferred shall be registered to the transferee by the transferor.
(c) How registered
Each manufacturer shall notify the Secretary of the manufacture of a firearm in such manner as may by regulations be prescribed and such notification shall effect the registration of the firearm required by this section. Each importer, maker, and transferor of a firearm shall, prior to importing, making, or transferring a firearm, obtain authorization in such manner as required by this chapter or regulations issued thereunder to import, make, or transfer the firearm, and such authorization shall effect the registration of the firearm required by this section.
(d) Firearms registered on effective date of this Act
A person shown as possessing a firearm by the records maintained by the Secretary pursuant to the National Firearms Act in force on the day immediately prior to the effective date of the National Firearms Act of 1968 shall be considered to have registered under this section the firearms in his possession which are disclosed by that record as being in his possession.
(e) Proof of registration
A person possessing a firearm registered as required by this section shall retain proof of registration which shall be made available to the Secretary upon request.

Search this title:

Notes
Updates
Parallel authorities (CFR)
Your comments

Posted: 10/11/2005 9:01:42 AM EDT

[#49]

So just a question but how many of you bitching about the NFA actually own anything that s regulated by the NFA? or live in states where you can legaly, under state law posses/own NFA items?

Posted: 10/11/2005 9:06:16 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
§ 5841. Registration of firearms

Release date: 2005-08-31

(a) Central registry
The Secretary shall maintain a central registry of all firearms in the United States which are not in the possession or under the control of the United States. This registry shall be known as the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. The registry shall include—
(1) identification of the firearm;
(2) date of registration; and
(3) identification and address of person entitled to possession of the firearm.
(b) By whom registered
Each manufacturer, importer, and maker shall register each firearm he manufactures, imports, or makes. Each firearm transferred shall be registered to the transferee by the transferor.
(c) How registered
Each manufacturer shall notify the Secretary of the manufacture of a firearm in such manner as may by regulations be prescribed and such notification shall effect the registration of the firearm required by this section. Each importer, maker, and transferor of a firearm shall, prior to importing, making, or transferring a firearm, obtain authorization in such manner as required by this chapter or regulations issued thereunder to import, make, or transfer the firearm, and such authorization shall effect the registration of the firearm required by this section.
(d) Firearms registered on effective date of this Act
A person shown as possessing a firearm by the records maintained by the Secretary pursuant to the National Firearms Act in force on the day immediately prior to the effective date of the National Firearms Act of 1968 shall be considered to have registered under this section the firearms in his possession which are disclosed by that record as being in his possession.
(e) Proof of registration
A person possessing a firearm registered as required by this section shall retain proof of registration which shall be made available to the Secretary upon request.

Search this title:

Notes
Updates
Parallel authorities (CFR)
Your comments

What a bout the title? It's a freaking TAX registry for firearms and other weapons which require the NFA tax to be used. Tell ya what you call the BAATFE and tell them that you would like to knowhow many and what spesific types of NFA items I own and see what they say. Then call the IRS and see if they will tell you any ifo other then yes I paid that tax see if they will tell you exactly what item(s) I bought and paid the NFA tax for. See how quick you don't get that info. Any LE on the board want to try and use thier LE status to see if they would give it to you contact me. I garuntee you will not get what I paid the tax for out of the ATF or the IRS. The point being that it is not a general use open to naybody to see registry of tax info. And thats what it is it's a registry of who paid the tax and for what they paid that tax. The government can require that but ONLY for tax reasons.

And if they do give you the info, let me know so I can sue the shit out of them.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Is the National Firearms Act unconstitutional? (Page 1 of 3)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us