April 22, 2005, 04:12 PM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 9, 2004
Posts: 1,519
|
Quote:
The 'real score' has already been posted here. If one wants a full auto 10-22, the only real option is to pony up the $6-8k and buy one as a transferable unless you are actively engaged in the business of making and/or selling NFA weapons. If you get an SOT without intention or a bonafide attempt at engaging in business you risk losing the license and potentially facing charges for tax evasion. The cost of the licenses with ITAR fees runs about $2000/year and posties cannot be kept if you lose or relinquish the license. If you just get an 01/SOT, you still need a LEO demo letter to get any post-samples. Additionally, if state law precludes possession of NFA weapons, just forming a corporation and/or getting an SOT does not automatically override state law, there would still have to be a specific exemption in the law for SOT/licensees. So lets do the math... Option #1. $2000/year license & fees x 4 years = $8000 + $150 for a 10-22 to convert. At the end of 4 years you've spent at least $8150 and all you have to show for it is a used post-sample 10-22 which is worth about $150, if that much. Keep in mind you have to actively engage in business and will probably have to spend even more money to get your business up and running. Additionally all necessary state and local zoning and business permits must be obtained, as well as getting a business location (unless you like having to open your home to BATF when they come to inspect). Option #2. Spend about $7k now to buy a transferable 10-22. In four years all you have to show is a transferable 10-22 which is still worth the $7k you paid, and more likely than not, worth significantly more (probably about $8k-9k by then). |
|
May 7, 2005, 11:56 PM | #27 |
Junior Member
Join Date: May 7, 2005
Posts: 3
|
Fear and the Law
Fear and Righteous Indignation are two paralyzers of educational discourse. It is one thing to question, another to put into motion. We all wonder about certain "razor's edge" activities. It does not mean they will be implemented. We can dream, can't we? We can even ask "out of ignorance", or simply out of the depths of Walter Mittie's gropings, without incurring the abrasive and flat snubbed-nose of those who won't go out in the rain for fear of getting mud on their shoes. I respect the point behind it all - certain actions are illegal and won't be supported. But I am offended that it often results in indignant rebuttals
rather than friendly chatter, and even sometimes humoring the information hound. It is up to each to plot his course. One need not supply information, but one need not necessarily step up to the plate to deliver a face-slap just to announce that he alone is worthy of the golden prize of sinlessness. Just a thought. Let education have a chance. Drop being an umpire. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|