Armory Sponsor
Posted: 12/26/2009 7:40:32 PM EDT
| How nice would it be to get a card after receiving your first Form 1 or 4 back, so that all you had to do was give the dealer your card, ID $ for the item being purchased and the $200 tax, and you walk out with your purchase. The BATFE would be raking it in and the Industry would be loving it. I know so many people that just are to impatient to buy NFA stuff just because of the wait, not even the prices, just because they can't take it home that day........They allready do it with CCW's here in AZ with firearms purchases so why not NFA How many background checks do they have to do on the same person, how many copies of the same llc or trust do they need? give a permit to the person after they have done it one time and from there on out collect the MONEY thats what it's all about anyway.... |
|
Quoted:
The whole point of NFA is to restrict ownership. Any improvement is counter to the original intent of the legislation. +2. This is one case where it is not about the MONEY. Instead, when Congress was drafting the National Firearms Act in 1933, the U.S. attorney general told them a ban was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. So instead, they invented the most difficult, expensive (in 1933, most folks made about $600 a year) and time-consuming process they could –– a de facto ban. That was the intent of the law, and it remains true today –– except that now, the present attorney general says that bans are allowed under the Second Amendment. We have to hope the U.S. Supreme Court continues to disagree, and expands the Heller ruling against outright bans. |
|
Quoted: Originally, FDR(hallowed be the reading of HIS NAME) wanted this to apply to all firearms but the incrementalist Democrats took what they could knowing that it made the next step easier. Quoted: +2.The whole point of NFA is to restrict ownership. Any improvement is counter to the original intent of the legislation. This is one case where it is not about the MONEY. Instead, when Congress was drafting the National Firearms Act in 1933, the U.S. attorney general told them a ban was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. So instead, they invented the most difficult, expensive (in 1933, most folks made about $600 a year) and time-consuming process they could –– a de facto ban. That was the intent of the law, and it remains true today –– except that now, the present attorney general says that bans are allowed under the Second Amendment. We have to hope the U.S. Supreme Court continues to disagree, and expands the Heller ruling against outright bans. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: How much was $200 in 1933 money? I'm sure this would put things into perspective. Around $3300 in today's market. Inflation dollars are not the way to look at it. Look at it as percentage of your yearly income (as Tony pointed out). Then it is staggering. |
| I, for one, am happy that I still have the right to own the items. Sure, in a perfect world I'd love to be able to go down to my local dealer and plop down $1,200, and instead of getting a new colt 6920, I could get a new M4A2. But I can't. And at this point, I'm more interested in not looseing that right completely. I'm glad the NFA has kind of flown under the radar for so many years. I just hope it stays that way. |
|
Quoted:
I, for one, am happy that I still have the right to own the items. Sure, in a perfect world I'd love to be able to go down to my local dealer and plop down $1,200, and instead of getting a new colt 6920, I could get a new M4A2. But I can't. And at this point, I'm more interested in not looseing that right completely. I'm glad the NFA has kind of flown under the radar for so many years. I just hope it stays that way. I'm surprised there hasn't been an attempt to adjust the cost of the stamp. Seems like something that would not be opposed by the NRA, as they don't seem to active on the NFA front, and who could argue with "slowing the ownership of such deadly things as silencers and sawed-off shotguns and rifles." |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I, for one, am happy that I still have the right to own the items. Sure, in a perfect world I'd love to be able to go down to my local dealer and plop down $1,200, and instead of getting a new colt 6920, I could get a new M4A2. But I can't. And at this point, I'm more interested in not looseing that right completely. I'm glad the NFA has kind of flown under the radar for so many years. I just hope it stays that way. I'm surprised there hasn't been an attempt to adjust the cost of the stamp. Seems like something that would not be opposed by the NRA, as they don't seem to active on the NFA front, and who could argue with "slowing the ownership of such deadly things as silencers and sawed-off shotguns and rifles." It's difficult to determine the precise game plan of the antigun crowd. 
But you have to realize that NFA regulation is exactly what they want for all firearms –– a sizeable federal tax, but more important, a lengthy (as in months-long) process, fingerprinting, FBI background checks, and serious, significant restrictions on anyone other than the registered owner possessing the firearm. Even antigunners have difficulty arguing with this fact: Extremely few registered NFA items have been used by their registered owners in the commission of crime. One take is that they would prefer to first make every firearm, class by class, into NFA firearms .... first "assault weapons," then all handguns, then centerfire rifles, then shotguns, then rimfire rifles, then airguns and knives, not to mention assault spoons ... and once that is accomplished, then can raise the transfer tax to $20k per item. For antigunners, NFA works. Why mess with it and arouse the populace until you have first disarmed them by making all guns NFA? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I, for one, am happy that I still have the right to own the items. Sure, in a perfect world I'd love to be able to go down to my local dealer and plop down $1,200, and instead of getting a new colt 6920, I could get a new M4A2. But I can't. And at this point, I'm more interested in not looseing that right completely. I'm glad the NFA has kind of flown under the radar for so many years. I just hope it stays that way. I'm surprised there hasn't been an attempt to adjust the cost of the stamp. Seems like something that would not be opposed by the NRA, as they don't seem to active on the NFA front, and who could argue with "slowing the ownership of such deadly things as silencers and sawed-off shotguns and rifles." Like tonyk pointed out, they would like everything to become NFA like. But the $200 is also a tax, and its not something that they could just say, hey, the cost of doing business has increased, we are going to raise the price. It would take everything that would go into changing the tax rate on anything else to raise the transfer tax. |
Armory Sponsor