PDA

View Full Version : The $200 'Machine Gun Tax' of 1934


cchardwick
October 7, 2008, 09:47 AM
I'm considering buying a full auto machine gun with a silencer as a long term investment since my 401K and stocks are still at 50% of what they were 10 years ago LOL. I was pondering the $200 tax that was imposed in 1934. That's not very much money today, but I found a neat calculator online that converted it to '1934 dollars'. Using the Consumer Price Index, $200 back in 1934 was equivalent to $3,096.97 today! I bet that was a big slam back then; not much of an issue today.
:cool:

aroundlsu
October 7, 2008, 10:32 AM
shhhhhhhh I don't think the Feds have realized this yet.

KChen986
October 7, 2008, 12:58 PM
Weren't we in the midsts of the great depression in 1934? It would make sense for a relatively insignificant amount (to us, now) seem much greater than it was, then.

GE-Minigun
October 7, 2008, 01:32 PM
You’re nuts if your getting a machinegun for investment purposes, it only take a stroke of a pen to make it worth 0 to anyone but you. Laws could change (both state and federal) that would not allow you to transfer the gun, they could raise the tax to couple thousand. It really isn’t worth it and has been beat to death on some of the machinegun boards.

VUPDblue
October 7, 2008, 02:39 PM
Yeah, don't BS us with the "I want one as an investment" that's like saying you read Playboy for the articles.....;)

cchardwick
October 7, 2008, 03:40 PM
But seriously, they do have good articles! Actually the investment idea is the excuse I'm going to sell to my wife SHHHHHHHHHH.

aroundlsu
October 7, 2008, 03:46 PM
If the past is any indication of the future, everyone will have a heads up if the "stroke of the pen" happens and stops future transfers. Then we'll really see prices shoot up as people rush to get what they can.

cchardwick
October 7, 2008, 03:52 PM
If Resident Evil is any indication of things to come, people will all turn into flesh eating zombies and then I'll be glad I bought my machine gun LOLOL.

:D

Hkmp5sd
October 7, 2008, 05:19 PM
Don't forget the cost of feeding one of these animals. :) T'aint for the weak hearted.

Crosshair
October 7, 2008, 08:51 PM
Don't forget that with Heller and other challenges, the 86 ban might be overturned within a decade or so. Meaning that $20,000 M-16 will be worth $1,500.

FA guns are only valuable because the supply is ARTIFICIALLY limited. That is the ONLY reason they are so valuable.

Hkmp5sd
October 8, 2008, 04:10 PM
Please knock my M16 down to $1,500. Same with my MP5! I wanna P90 and Glock 18 for starters. So yes, kill 922(o).

Tamara
October 8, 2008, 06:27 PM
In 1934, the transfer tax was about the cost of a brand new Thompson, which you could get by mail order.

The tax was many, many times the cost of a short-barreled shotgun.

James K
October 14, 2008, 07:48 PM
Actually, the Attorney General, one Homer S. Cummings, and the FDR administration proposed a sliding transfer tax that was intended to be prohibitory. IIRC, the transfer tax was $5000 on a machinegun, $2000 on a handgun, $1000 on a rifle and $500 on a shotgun. In addition, there would be a tax of $50 on each round of handgun ammo, $20 on each round of rifle ammo, $5 on each shotshell, and $.50 on each round of .22 ammo. Multiply by around $40 for today's dollar values.

All guns had to be registered and no inheritance would be allowed. But NOTE, as Sen. Obama emphasizes, no one would TAKE AWAY any guns. Until you die, then into the furnace went your guns.

When Congress got done in 1934, the bill was watered down to what is essentially the NFA as it exists today as part of GCA '68.

Also note well that while his attorney general was pushing what would effectively be a ban on guns, FDR was claiming to be a "hunter and sportsman" even having himself decked out in a shooting jacket and carried to the firing line of a military rifle range where he held a Model 1903 like he had never seen one before, which he probably hadn't. Sound familiar?

Jim

publius
October 28, 2008, 08:49 PM
There should be no tax at all. Oh and FDR:barf: The trifecta of the downfall of the U.S.Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ.:barf:

FLRich
November 2, 2008, 08:38 AM
Crosshair, are you serious ? Heller..."other changes" the 86' ban be turned over EVER ? The only other changes will be the changes in the Supreme Court and the changes to our lives as we currently know it. OhMamma will be targeting our CCW's along with all of his democratic friends in both the house and senate.

You REALLY think that the 86' act stands ANY chance of disappearing ? Possibly, no need for the 86' ban if ALL guns are banned. :mad:

freakshow10mm
November 2, 2008, 04:19 PM
The trifecta of the downfall of the U.S.Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ.
And don't forget Lincoln.

ckd
November 2, 2008, 04:34 PM
I know several people, myself included, that fully expect the "tax stamp" prices to increase substantially, so if you can afford to purchase and process your applications sooner, rather than later, you'll probably be happier.:rolleyes: Reality, regardless of who occupies the oval office, we will never see the tax disappear.

Crosshair
November 3, 2008, 10:55 PM
Crosshair, are you serious ? Heller..."other changes" the 86' ban be turned over EVER ? The only other changes will be the changes in the Supreme Court and the changes to our lives as we currently know it. OhMamma will be targeting our CCW's along with all of his democratic friends in both the house and senate.

You REALLY think that the 86' act stands ANY chance of disappearing ? Possibly, no need for the 86' ban if ALL guns are banned.
Quite the pessimist, aren't you?

Can women vote? Are Jim Crow laws still on the books. (OK, so the war on drugs is the last Jim Crow law still in effect.) Did we put men on the moon? Just because something is unlikely or difficult does not mean that one should not try.

The US is entering a turbulent time. None of us can predict the future. Gun owners are much better organized now than we were in 1994. It is true that these times could make things go hard in either direction. Would Obama be damaging to our country. Chances are most defiantly. However, many Dems remember 1994 and the AWB. Even Bill Clinton said that the AWB lost 20 seats in the house. So the Dems rubber stamping another AWB is not a 100% sure thing. If Obama plays his cards right, he will loose congress in 2010, depending on what legislation is proposed/passed and how the economy goes.

If you have already given up, then you might as well take a cutting torch to your guns now and quit wasting everyone's time whining about it. There are those of us, that will continue to work toward a difficult, but not impossible goal. Working to prevent encroachment on our remaining rights. There are many things that need to be done before taking on the 86 ban. Much lower mountains need to be climbed first. Only time will tell who is right.

2ndchance
November 7, 2008, 01:38 AM
Personally, I think Obama IS going to screw with another AWB, because of that, I went online and purchased 3 new assault rifles just minutes after Obama gave his speech. It was the best $4000 I've spent in a long time.

The next morning I signed up for a 5 year NRA membership. I have faith that the gunowners in america will stand up and fight for our 2nd Amendment rights. I have faith that the NRA and other pro-gun organizations will lobby and put up a strong fight, as well.

Alas, I also feel that there are enough brainless zombies out there, who are so disconnected with our world, who willingly hand over their freedoms (and ours in turn) and are being led like sheep by the great shepherd named Obama.

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

teeroux
November 7, 2008, 04:35 AM
[QUOTE]it only take a stroke of a pen to make it worth 0 to anyone but you/QUOTE]

What never heard of the black market.

2ndchance
November 7, 2008, 07:19 PM
Ever hear of "Club Fed"? Dealing NFA in the black market is 1st Class ticket to the hooskow.

44 AMP
November 7, 2008, 10:03 PM
Especially here in the NFA forum!
I went online and purchased 3 new assault rifles just minutes after Obama gave his speech. It was the best $4000 I've spent in a long time.


I seriously doubt you were able to purchace 3 assault rifles for a mere $4000!
Assault rifles (using the correct definition) are machine guns under US law (because they are select fire). And finding any single civilian transferable machinegun for $4000 is a tall order these days.

The semi auto military style rifles demonized by the antis and banned/restricted by the 94 AWB are called assault weapons in the laws pertaining to them. The 94 Assault Weapons Ban did not ban or restrict a single assault rifle, it only applied to semi auto firearms.

What never heard of the black market.

Yes, we have all heard of it. But please be reminded that advocating any illegal activity is a violation of forum rules. Disagreeing with existing law and advocating change to existing law is allowed, even sometimes encouraged, but advocating or encouraging actions which break existing laws are not.

MrNiceGuy
November 7, 2008, 10:09 PM
You’re nuts if your getting a machinegun for investment purposes, it only take a stroke of a pen to make it worth 0 to anyone but you. Laws could change (both state and federal) that would not allow you to transfer the gun, they could raise the tax to couple thousand. It really isn’t worth it and has been beat to death on some of the machinegun boards.

he's already lost %50 on his stocks
the dollar itself is dropping in value still
the government has confiscated peoples precious metals and has made statements to the effect that the possibility of doing it again is still on the table

in this day and age... a gun is just as worthy of an investment as anything else....


and if you really think an outlawed gun would be worthless, you obviously dont understand the finer intricacies of supply and demand ;)

molon labe anyone?

Crosshair
November 7, 2008, 11:57 PM
Ever hear of "Club Fed"? Dealing NFA in the black market is 1st Class ticket to the hooskow.
Have you heard of the profits? There are people I went to high school with who make more in a month than I make in a year. (I don't associate with them, but you hear things through the grapevine.) Tax free no less.

Banning guns is the quickest way to start having shipping containers full of AKs smuggled into the US.

2ndchance
November 8, 2008, 08:41 PM
I seriously doubt you were able to purchace 3 assault rifles for a mere $4000!
Assault rifles (using the correct definition) are machine guns under US law (because they are select fire). And finding any single civilian transferable machinegun for $4000 is a tall order these days.

44 AMP, you are right. These are not the true "assault rifles" as pertained to this NFA Gun and Gear forum. I was merely referring to the assault rifles that the AWB had considered and probably any future bans that might be in play.

I purchased another AR15 M4 carbine, an AR15 M4 carbine parts kit, FN FS2000, and an AK.

44 AMP
November 9, 2008, 10:04 PM
The problem is that since 1944 when the German Army got Hitler's approval to use the MP44, Hitler renamed it the "Sturmgewehr" and the common English translation for that is "assault rifle" It could also be validly translated as "Storm Rifle". Soldiers "assault" or "storm" an objective, and so the rifle is aptly named. The US Army and the firearms community adopted the term to describe all rifles of the type, and it has been in use for over half a century.

The proper definition includes the words "selective fire", along with the other features common to this type of weapon.

When the anti gunners began demonizing military look alike rifles following the Stockton Ca. schoolyard shooting, many knowledgeable individuals point out to them that the rifle used was not an assault rifle, and wasted a lot of their breath explaining the difference. They didn't care. In order not to be accused of "lying", they started using the cumbersome term "semiautomatic assault rifle", knowing full well that this term would soon be dropped by newscasters who were more interested in a good sound byte than in being accurate. Semiautomatic assault rifle became "assault weapon" when they included certain handguns (those resembling SMGs), and this was the language that was adopted (verbatim) by legislators in Fed and state service when they proposed (and passed) legislation back in 94.

Assault Weapon is a totally made up term, one never used in the firearms community. Online dictionaries and later even print ones included the terms, with inaccurate definitions. Protest to the editors recieved the same response, that the dictionaries reflect the definition of the word, in popular usage.

The antis scored a major coup, by deliberatly using a misleading term, rather than the intellectually honest one in use by the military and firearms communities. Even today, a great many shooters use the terms assault rifle and assault weapon incorrectly, referring to semi auto rifles.

It is in our best interests, as public representatives of the firearms community (and don't think for a moment that this board isn't public) to ensure we use only the correct proper terms, and not the language of the enemies of freedom.

cchardwick
November 12, 2008, 01:33 AM
It's too bad that they are going after the AR-15s because it's THE most versatile gun in existance. By just swapping out the upper receiver you can change it over to about 15 different calibers including big bore large game stopping calibers. All they ever focus on is the .223 which they claim is only good for shooting 'people'. Yes, this is what the round was designed for, but the availablilty of other calibers in this platform is what gives the AR-15 it's appeal. Load it up with some .458 Socom and it's well suited for deer, elk, or grizzlies!