Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Posted: 12/29/2003 8:26:07 AM EDT
When this was passed, why was the $200 dollar tax stamp imposed? In 1934 that would have been quite the sum of money. The stamp supposedly existed to raise revenue, but at the time that seemed a rediculous amount of money.    

Now what was the line of thinking over short barreled rifles and placing stocks on pistols?
It doesent make much sense. Why not go on OAL alone if you are going to regulate a rifles length, as a shorter barrel just reduces the rifles effectiveness...

Something is amiss, when this law was passed, as said before, $200 dollars was a mind numbing sum of money for a rifle that costs 5% of that. Who was this law targeting and why? What politicol agenda did it aid?      
 
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 8:29:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2003 8:31:31 AM EDT by StariVojnik]
Gangsters & Bank Robbers perhaps?

The "Chicago Typewriter" was a well known instrument played by many famous musicians.[:D]
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 8:31:31 AM EDT
I dont think they would be paying a $200 tax stamp to aquire a SBR or a Fully Automatic weapon.      
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 8:35:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2003 8:36:38 AM EDT by StariVojnik]
Originally Posted By Knife_Sniper:
I dont think they would be paying a $200 tax stamp to aquire a SBR or a Fully Automatic weapon.      
View Quote


Criminals don't follow rules like us law abiding citizens.  But the mis-informed politicians felt that (and still do) that writing legislation banning or prohibiting/restricting these weapons will make everyone safer. [BD]
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 8:38:37 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 8:40:24 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Knife_Sniper:
I dont think they would be paying a $200 tax stamp to aquire a SBR or a Fully Automatic weapon.      
View Quote


Now I know your not suggesting perps follow the law, are you? After all they are only victims.

Link Posted: 12/29/2003 8:41:47 AM EDT
IMHO, Congress needed to do something with the hundreds of now jobless agents involved in Prohibition, wanted to "do something" about the massive increase in violent crime (which they had, by repealing Prohibition, but still...) and they knew they couldn't ban guns because of the Second Amendment - so they used the "interstate commerce" clause to let them [i]regulate[/i] the trade in "crime guns" - with the notable exception of handguns.

Of course, nobody with a $5 sawed-off was going to pay a $200 tax to "transfer" it.

In other words, they overstepped their Constitutional Authority, but it was OK!  The President signed the bill, and the Supreme Court let the law stand.

So it must be OK, right?
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 8:43:09 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 8:45:17 AM EDT
It was an early attempt to ban firearms and circumvent the 2nd amendment.  Violated the spirit of the 2nd, but not the letter.
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 8:50:37 AM EDT
Allowing for inflation, consider that same $200 would be $2674.51 today (at least up to 2002).

[url]http://www.westegg.com/inflation[/url]
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 8:57:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2003 9:00:20 AM EDT by mr_wilson]
Originally Posted By KBaker:
IMHO, Congress needed to do something with the hundreds of [red]now jobless agents involved in Prohibition[/red], wanted to "do something" about the massive increase in violent crime (which they had, by repealing Prohibition, but still...) and they knew they couldn't ban guns because of the Second Amendment - so they used the "interstate commerce" clause to let them [i]regulate[/i] the trade in "crime guns" - with the notable exception of handguns.

Of course, nobody with a $5 sawed-off was going to pay a $200 tax to "transfer" it.
View Quote



DING, DING, DING..... winner, winner chicken dinner, I agree.

Too many revenuers, no crime to punish, so they had to invent some new crimes for them to enforce, rather than fire the worthless bastages. Not to mention the new "tax" to collect.

Mike

added: if you haven't read [b]"Unintended Consequences"[/b] by John Ross, I suggest you read it, to learn about all the second ammendment infringements and their origins.
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 8:58:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By raven:
It was an early attempt to ban firearms and circumvent the 2nd amendment.  Violated the spirit of the 2nd, [red]but not the letter[/red].
View Quote



What part of "shall not be infringed", is incomprehensible to you???  [rolleyes]
Top Top