Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/25/2005 8:45:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/25/2005 8:45:30 PM EDT by Cape_hunter]
If lifted is there enough money there to use as a tool to get it done in the first place? Could we use that as leverage to sway or turn those that would normally not support lifting the ban?

Just thinking outloud.
CH
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 8:46:43 PM EDT
I'm good for a grand or two in transfer fees! And in the event I ever get a tax refund again, maybe more?
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 8:46:50 PM EDT
In the millions.
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 8:47:36 PM EDT
not enough to pay for the mop up of all the blood that will run in the streets..

Link Posted: 12/25/2005 8:48:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/25/2005 8:48:56 PM EDT by motown_steve]
Not that much. There aren't THAT many people out there who want registered machine guns but are being denied by the market shortages and the price range. Besides, I think that the cost of FBI background check far exceeds the $200 tax stamp. Keep in mind that when the NFA was passed you could buy a brand new car for $200.
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 8:50:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Not that much. There aren't THAT many people out there who want registered machine guns but are being denied by the market shortages and the price range. Besides, I think that the cost of FBI background check far exceeds the $200 tax stamp. Keep in mind that when the NFA was passed you could buy a brand new car for $200.



Arnt we aready paying for the extra cost if it cost more than $200 to runa backgourn check.
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 8:51:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/25/2005 8:51:43 PM EDT by mattimeo]

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Not that much. There aren't THAT many people out there who want registered machine guns but are being denied by the market shortages and the price range. Besides, I think that the cost of FBI background check far exceeds the $200 tax stamp. Keep in mind that when the NFA was passed you could buy a brand new car for $200.



Bullshit. Florida permit holders have to pay a $42 fee for the same fingerprint run. The cost of that has nothing to do with this tax.


Besides. You have to consider that the reason there aren't THAT many people wanting MGs is cause they cost so damned much, re: the 86 ban. Why the hell would I buy a semi AR ever again if I could get a brand new in the box full auto for the same price, plus transfer tax?
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 8:54:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Not that much. There aren't THAT many people out there who want registered machine guns but are being denied by the market shortages and the price range. Besides, I think that the cost of FBI background check far exceeds the $200 tax stamp. Keep in mind that when the NFA was passed you could buy a brand new car for $200.



I respectfully disagree. I own a silencer and SBR but I can't choose not to afford a MG at current prices. I'm sure most here would register a lower receiver if they could or at least get a RDIAS. I know I would buy 5 stripped lower AR receivers and 5 AK receivers and register them. Then slowly have them built up as rifles.
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 8:54:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Not that much. There aren't THAT many people out there who want registered machine guns but are being denied by the market shortages and the price range. Besides, I think that the cost of FBI background check far exceeds the $200 tax stamp. Keep in mind that when the NFA was passed you could buy a brand new car for $200.



Say they raise it to $500 for machine guns and streamline the process so you dont have the the extensive backgroudn check for EVERY stamp. Say that you could register as many as you want after your first background for 90s after. Then another was required. There has to be a way to streamline the process to make it more cost friendly.

CH
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 8:57:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cluster:
not enough to pay for the mop up of all the blood that will run in the streets..




You're kidding right? Do you have any idea how many people were killed by NFA-registered weapons before the 86 ban? I think it was like maybe ONE...

Say hi to Sarah and Jim for me,

Besides, since when do the gun grabbers give a shit about blood in the streets. They LOVE it! It's their best fund-raising tool!

In my experience, when it comes to government or law enforcement in this country anymore it's ALL about the MONEY!

My personal theory is the folks who've sunk hundreds of thousands into guns that were worth a few hundred dollars before the assinine 86 ban would be the ones who would scream the loudest if it got lifted. Their zillionaire collections would suddenly be worth a tiny fraction of what they paid for them!
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 9:02:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By the_great_snag:

Originally Posted By cluster:
not enough to pay for the mop up of all the blood that will run in the streets..




You're kidding right? Do you have any idea how many people were killed by NFA-registered weapons before the 86 ban? I think it was like maybe ONE...

Say hi to Sarah and Jim for me,

Besides, since when do the gun grabbers give a shit about blood in the streets. They LOVE it! It's their best fund-raising tool!

In my experience, when it comes to government or law enforcement in this country anymore it's ALL about the MONEY!

My personal theory is the folks who've sunk hundreds of thousands into guns that were worth a few hundred dollars before the assinine 86 ban would be the ones who would scream the loudest if it got lifted. Their zillionaire collections would suddenly be worth a tiny fraction of what they paid for them!


Very few.
Freedoms back or retain investments? Not contest. Most gun owners care more about freedom then bottomline!

AWB was a good example.
CH

CH
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 9:02:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mattimeo:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Not that much. There aren't THAT many people out there who want registered machine guns but are being denied by the market shortages and the price range. Besides, I think that the cost of FBI background check far exceeds the $200 tax stamp. Keep in mind that when the NFA was passed you could buy a brand new car for $200.



Bullshit. Florida permit holders have to pay a $42 fee for the same fingerprint run. The cost of that has nothing to do with this tax.



The FBI doesn't just run your fingerprints when you apply for a Class III weapon. They do a full blown background which is the equivalent to the background check performed on people who are applying for a Top Secret security clearance. It is my understanding that they actually send agents out to talk to people about you before approving your transfer. That definately costs Uncle Sam more than $200.



Besides. You have to consider that the reason there aren't THAT many people wanting MGs is cause they cost so damned much, re: the 86 ban. Why the hell would I buy a semi AR ever again if I could get a brand new in the box full auto for the same price, plus transfer tax?


Not necessarily. There are many other factors involved. Several states have laws of their own banning MG ownership and they would not be effected by lifting the 1986 MG ban. Also, you have the fact that alot of CLEO's will not approve requests for Class III weapons transfers. Then you have people out there who wouldn't want to go through the hassle of the transfer, people who aren't interested in owning an MG and people who don't think anyone should own an MG. The import ban would still be in effect, so you wouldn't be able to get cheap forgien MG's, and then you have the fact that the people making MG's now have their efforts dedicated to supplying governments with weapons for the GWOT. You would see a price drop, but MG's wouldn't be the same price as semis are.
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 9:08:04 PM EDT
I dont think they send agents out to talk to people.
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 9:09:13 PM EDT
Minimum 2k from me...
p90
few ar lowers
AUG
M2HB
others
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 9:11:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cape_hunter:

Originally Posted By the_great_snag:

Originally Posted By cluster:
not enough to pay for the mop up of all the blood that will run in the streets..




You're kidding right? Do you have any idea how many people were killed by NFA-registered weapons before the 86 ban? I think it was like maybe ONE...

Say hi to Sarah and Jim for me,

Besides, since when do the gun grabbers give a shit about blood in the streets. They LOVE it! It's their best fund-raising tool!

In my experience, when it comes to government or law enforcement in this country anymore it's ALL about the MONEY!

My personal theory is the folks who've sunk hundreds of thousands into guns that were worth a few hundred dollars before the assinine 86 ban would be the ones who would scream the loudest if it got lifted. Their zillionaire collections would suddenly be worth a tiny fraction of what they paid for them!


Very few.
Freedoms back or retain investments? Not contest. Most gun owners care more about freedom then bottomline!

AWB was a good example.
CH


CH



I think most collectors and owners of MG's would prefer freedom to retaining their investments too, but I'm sure the media would find a few who are backwards enough to fight lifting the ban. You know more than a few of them would. Mostly elitists and very rich folks...

With that said though, I agree that most of these guy sunk the money into their guns because they LIKE them, not as business decisions. Their are far safer investments (financially) out there than aging full autos..
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 9:11:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By C-4:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Not that much. There aren't THAT many people out there who want registered machine guns but are being denied by the market shortages and the price range. Besides, I think that the cost of FBI background check far exceeds the $200 tax stamp. Keep in mind that when the NFA was passed you could buy a brand new car for $200.



I respectfully disagree. I own a silencer and SBR but I can't choose not to afford a MG at current prices. I'm sure most here would register a lower receiver if they could or at least get a RDIAS. I know I would buy 5 stripped lower AR receivers and 5 AK receivers and register them. Then slowly have them built up as rifles.



OK, let's say that every member of the NRA (4 million people) would regsiter 5 MG's. That'd be $4 billion in tax revenue. A drop in the bucket for this government. And you and I both know that every member of the NRA is not going to register 5 MG's. You MIGHT see 1/4 of that register 1 machine gun.

There are currently about 250,000 registered Machine guns in this country. That's everything which was privately owned up to 1986. Some were probably destroyed, some stolen, but the fact of the matter is that the demand for FA weapons wasn't that enormous prior to 1986 and aside from the true die hard gun nuts there isn't that much demand today.

In answer to the original question, it would not be an effective means of raising tax revenue for the Government. Especially since they can accomplish the same thing in so many other ways which will not require them to allow citizens to arm themselves.
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 9:12:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JBowles:
I dont think they send agents out to talk to people.



The people who I know that have Class III weapons have told me that the BGC is the same as the BGC for a TS security clearance, and that means FBI agents conducting personal interviews.
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 9:15:05 PM EDT
1) Billions. Not just in transfer taxes. US Jobs for US Citizens, other companies (steal, machining, gun stores, ammo, chemical {powder, lead, copper, aluminum, oil, etc} machine parts & tools, health care providers {employees need health care not blood in the streets}, retirement investments, utilities, etc).

2) NICS Checks for Class III or NFA or Suppressors or Destructive Devices etc. Eliminate the CLEO signoff. There streamlined. $200 transfer tax.

3) Federal Law supercedes state law under Interstate Commerce Clause of US Constitution (California Medical Marijuana Case decided last year in the US Supreme Court).
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 9:28:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FS-FNRL:
1) Billions. Not just in transfer taxes. US Jobs for US Citizens, other companies (steal, machining, gun stores, ammo, chemical {powder, lead, copper, aluminum, oil, etc} machine parts & tools, health care providers {employees need health care not blood in the streets}, retirement investments, utilities, etc).



Assuming that the demand skyrockets.


2) NICS Checks for Class III or NFA or Suppressors or Destructive Devices etc. Eliminate the CLEO signoff. There streamlined. $200 transfer tax.


Now you are not only talking about repealing the 1986 MG ban, you are also talking about rewriting the National Firearms Act.


3) Federal Law supercedes state law under Interstate Commerce Clause of US Constitution (California Medical Marijuana Case decided last year in the US Supreme Court).



Different principles. The Feds can regulate something under the interstate commerce clause, but because of the 10th amendment states CAN institute their own bans, including gun bans. Case in point would be the dozen or so states which continue to ban "assault weapons" even though the Federal Assault Weapons ban has expired (also, the states which currently ban machine guns even though they are permitted under Federal Law).
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 9:31:48 PM EDT
I think the CLEO sig was added in 68
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 9:34:34 PM EDT
Never heard of agents being sent out to talk to people about you for a NFA transfer. I have LOTS of friends with them and thats news to me!

CH
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 9:36:40 PM EDT
It's a moot point. They get our money anyway. Free. As much as they want.
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 9:37:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By JBowles:
I dont think they send agents out to talk to people.



The people who I know that have Class III weapons have told me that the BGC is the same as the BGC for a TS security clearance, and that means FBI agents conducting personal interviews.



Really, now?

So who are they asking about the character of a corporation, when you slap Feel Good, Inc., on the form as the buyer, and get your paperwork back all super-slick-quick like?
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 9:56:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mattimeo:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By JBowles:
I dont think they send agents out to talk to people.



The people who I know that have Class III weapons have told me that the BGC is the same as the BGC for a TS security clearance, and that means FBI agents conducting personal interviews.



Really, now?

So who are they asking about the character of a corporation, when you slap Feel Good, Inc., on the form as the buyer, and get your paperwork back all super-slick-quick like?



Corporations are completely different entities. Corporations don't need CLEO signoff, corporations have no fingerprints to record and corporations have no criminal history to investigate. You are arguing apples and oranges.
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 10:16:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By mattimeo:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Not that much. There aren't THAT many people out there who want registered machine guns but are being denied by the market shortages and the price range. Besides, I think that the cost of FBI background check far exceeds the $200 tax stamp. Keep in mind that when the NFA was passed you could buy a brand new car for $200.



Bullshit. Florida permit holders have to pay a $42 fee for the same fingerprint run. The cost of that has nothing to do with this tax.



The FBI doesn't just run your fingerprints when you apply for a Class III weapon. They do a full blown background which is the equivalent to the background check performed on people who are applying for a Top Secret security clearance. It is my understanding that they actually send agents out to talk to people about you before approving your transfer. That definately costs Uncle Sam more than $200.


Besides. You have to consider that the reason there aren't THAT many people wanting MGs is cause they cost so damned much, re: the 86 ban. Why the hell would I buy a semi AR ever again if I could get a brand new in the box full auto for the same price, plus transfer tax?


Not necessarily. There are many other factors involved. Several states have laws of their own banning MG ownership and they would not be effected by lifting the 1986 MG ban. Also, you have the fact that alot of CLEO's will not approve requests for Class III weapons transfers. Then you have people out there who wouldn't want to go through the hassle of the transfer, people who aren't interested in owning an MG and people who don't think anyone should own an MG. The import ban would still be in effect, so you wouldn't be able to get cheap forgien MG's, and then you have the fact that the people making MG's now have their efforts dedicated to supplying governments with weapons for the GWOT. You would see a price drop, but MG's wouldn't be the same price as semis are.





You shouldn't be smoking your way through a fat bag of crack at the holiday season. It just ain't Christian.
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 10:30:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/25/2005 10:32:37 PM EDT by NAM]

Originally Posted By FightingHellfish:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
The FBI doesn't just run your fingerprints when you apply for a Class III weapon. They do a full blown background which is the equivalent to the background check performed on people who are applying for a Top Secret security clearance. It is my understanding that they actually send agents out to talk to people about you before approving your transfer. That definately costs Uncle Sam more than $200.




You shouldn't be smoking your way through a fat bag of crack at the holiday season. It just ain't Christian.



Ditto.

Motown_steve.... i hate to kill the holiday mood, but you are 100% full of shit.

Do you own any NFA weapons? Have you ever filled out a Standard form 86?
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 10:32:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NAM:

Originally Posted By FightingHellfish:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
The FBI doesn't just run your fingerprints when you apply for a Class III weapon. They do a full blown background which is the equivalent to the background check performed on people who are applying for a Top Secret security clearance. It is my understanding that they actually send agents out to talk to people about you before approving your transfer. That definately costs Uncle Sam more than $200.




You shouldn't be smoking your way through a fat bag of crack at the holiday season. It just ain't Christian.



Ditto.

Motown_steve.... i hate to tell you this on Christmas, but you are 100% full of shit.

Do you own any NFA weapons? Have you ever filled out a Standard form 86?



+1 I didn't want to say it, but...
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 10:39:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/25/2005 10:40:37 PM EDT by cluster]

Originally Posted By Cape_hunter:

Originally Posted By the_great_snag:

Originally Posted By cluster:
not enough to pay for the mop up of all the blood that will run in the streets..




You're kidding right? Do you have any idea how many people were killed by NFA-registered weapons before the 86 ban? I think it was like maybe ONE...

Say hi to Sarah and Jim for me,

Besides, since when do the gun grabbers give a shit about blood in the streets. They LOVE it! It's their best fund-raising tool!

In my experience, when it comes to government or law enforcement in this country anymore it's ALL about the MONEY!

My personal theory is the folks who've sunk hundreds of thousands into guns that were worth a few hundred dollars before the assinine 86 ban would be the ones who would scream the loudest if it got lifted. Their zillionaire collections would suddenly be worth a tiny fraction of what they paid for them!


Very few.
Freedoms back or retain investments? Not contest. Most gun owners care more about freedom then bottomline!

AWB was a good example.
CH

CH




hey now... hold on there gents...

i was talking about the same blood that will run thru the streets when they debate any gun issue,,

the latest being the AWB expiring..

hell.. i waited for the uzi's to fall out of the sky when it died, but it didnt happen :(

on the other hand it seems some people have seen the mystical assualt ice cream truck...

i didnt believe it at first..... but now that the shreck<sp> is finally shipping .... il belive ANYTHING...

Link Posted: 12/25/2005 10:39:46 PM EDT
Why does anyone think a change or re-writing of the NFA of 34' is a good idea at all??? Only good change to be done with the NFA of 34' is to completely erase it from the law books. I wont vote for any change other than complete destruction of the Natl Firearms Act, because I dont make deals with commies/socialists/nazis/demons/devils.
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 10:53:24 PM EDT



Link Posted: 12/26/2005 10:27:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By nf9648:
Why does anyone think a change or re-writing of the NFA of 34' is a good idea at all??? Only good change to be done with the NFA of 34' is to completely erase it from the law books. I wont vote for any change other than complete destruction of the Natl Firearms Act, because I dont make deals with commies/socialists/nazis/demons/devils.


NObody is talking about a rewrite of hte 34. just a lifting of the 86 ban. This would allow the registration of new machine guns. I will pay the tax if I can reg more guns. The 34 will never go away, but the 86?????

Saying that you will not vote for anyting other then a complete removal is no different then saying you will vote to keep them in place. Which is it? Will you vote to remove the 86 or vote to keep it because its not "complete" removal?
CH
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 6:19:24 PM EDT
If the 86 MG ban was lifted, I'd probably go broke buying guns.
I'd probably dump at least $1,000 into tax stamps/transfers. I knab every receiver I could, and worry about barrels and such later.

If the .gov can finger print me and do a BG check on me for for the $90 fee I pay here in NC for a CCW permit, then certainly the feds should be able to handle it with $200. Demand for full auto stuff would sky rocket. Prices on pre-86 stuff would plummet, while prices on new stuff would jump in the short term (since the LEO & .mil market would now have to compete with domestic comsumption).
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 6:28:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/26/2005 6:39:18 PM EDT by www-glock19-com]

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
The people who I know that have Class III weapons have told me that the BGC is the same as the BGC for a TS security clearance, and that means FBI agents conducting personal interviews.


we do have a class 3 forum here go post that there so everyone can laugh their ass off
as i understand it they confirm the figerprints match the person appling and do a 50 state backgroung check thats it (I have a couple of items )
Its amazing the BS that gets passed around concerning NFA stuff
BTW its either a form 1 or 4 for end user types
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 6:35:11 PM EDT
Thanks to the internet I am more educated about gun laws. Thanks to lying or ignorant gun dealers ( you can choose which ) before the ban, I have an AR instead of an M-16. I think a lot of Class III could be sold now.
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 7:31:49 PM EDT
Again the point of this thread was to ping your brains and get ideas about the money that could be rasied if it was lifted. I would think that some Rep senator would be able to pencil that into a bill to lift hte 86 ban.

Just looking at a few other angles thats all.
CH
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 8:51:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cape_hunter:

Originally Posted By nf9648:
Why does anyone think a change or re-writing of the NFA of 34' is a good idea at all??? Only good change to be done with the NFA of 34' is to completely erase it from the law books. I wont vote for any change other than complete destruction of the Natl Firearms Act, because I dont make deals with commies/socialists/nazis/demons/devils.


NObody is talking about a rewrite of hte 34. just a lifting of the 86 ban. This would allow the registration of new machine guns. I will pay the tax if I can reg more guns. The 34 will never go away, but the 86?????

Saying that you will not vote for anyting other then a complete removal is no different then saying you will vote to keep them in place. Which is it? Will you vote to remove the 86 or vote to keep it because its not "complete" removal?
CH



I wouldnt vote at all, for one reason. When has there ever been any gun legislation that worked for us, that didnt also work for them? You gain ground in one aspect, but give up ground in another. The enemy isnt stupid, they always play with a stacked deck. The catch may be that you get any full auto you want, but now all firearms are NFA registered and taxed. Then when a state (such as Hawaii) says no NFA, we lose all of our firearms, not just the fun ones.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 6:18:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2005 6:41:11 AM EDT by Cape_hunter]

Originally Posted By nf9648:

Originally Posted By Cape_hunter:

Originally Posted By nf9648:
Why does anyone think a change or re-writing of the NFA of 34' is a good idea at all??? Only good change to be done with the NFA of 34' is to completely erase it from the law books. I wont vote for any change other than complete destruction of the Natl Firearms Act, because I dont make deals with commies/socialists/nazis/demons/devils.


NObody is talking about a rewrite of hte 34. just a lifting of the 86 ban. This would allow the registration of new machine guns. I will pay the tax if I can reg more guns. The 34 will never go away, but the 86?????

Saying that you will not vote for anyting other then a complete removal is no different then saying you will vote to keep them in place. Which is it? Will you vote to remove the 86 or vote to keep it because its not "complete" removal?
CH



I wouldnt vote at all, for one reason. When has there ever been any gun legislation that worked for us, that didnt also work for them? You gain ground in one aspect, but give up ground in another. The enemy isnt stupid, they always play with a stacked deck. The catch may be that you get any full auto you want, but now all firearms are NFA registered and taxed. Then when a state (such as Hawaii) says no NFA, we lose all of our firearms, not just the fun ones.



So people shouldnt take cancer drugs becuase there is not COMPLETE cure?
I understand what your trying ot say but in reality, we have to compramise. There is not other way. If you hold out for complete lift of all gun laws, you will only die waiting. I choose to be proactive and take small steps to try and regain the freedoms duely ours!
CH
And by not voting your PART of the problem not the solution.

Link Posted: 12/27/2005 7:37:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mattimeo:
. Why the hell would I buy a semi AR ever again if I could get a brand new in the box full auto for the same price, plus transfer tax?



Bingo.
Top Top