Call me crazy about the law...

cannonfire · February 28, 2010, 04:45 PM

So I was talking about the rules of owning an automatic weapon... The tax, registered before 1986, etc. with a guy at work and we got to breaking it down. Does regulating automatic weapons really create a "safer" environment? For instance, IF I were a bad guy on the streets and I wanted an automatic AK47, I'd be able to find one. But for good citizens who want to add FA to their collections, we have to pay outrageous prices and look for a gun that is older than I am...

Being that the co-worker and I are both ex-military (I'm still in) I said that a well trained person with a semi-automatic rifle could be just as effective as an untrained criminal with an automatic AK47

Just looking for a reason why owning an FA is such a hassel

Schneiderman · February 28, 2010, 04:49 PM

I would argue that an untrained person with a semi auto is probably more effective than a criminal with a full auto...

No, I can't give you any reasons for any of these ridiculous regulations, there aren't any.

zoomie · February 28, 2010, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Does regulating automatic weapons really create a "safer" environment? For instance, IF I were a bad guy on the streets and I wanted an automatic AK47, I'd be able to find one. But for good citizens who want to add FA to their collections, we have to pay outrageous prices and look for a gun that is older than I am...

David Hineline · February 28, 2010, 11:57 PM

Maybe it has something to do with collecting taxes.

hoytinak · March 1, 2010, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Maybe it has something to do with collecting taxes.

That's the only thing I've been able to come up with myself. It's just one more way for them to collect money. I wonder what they'll do once all the transferable fullautos wear out though. Less transferable weapons = less money for the feds. Hopefully they'll have another amnesty period so people can flood the market again with all the stuff they've been hiding out in their attic for all these years.

Skans · March 1, 2010, 08:42 AM

It goes back to the 1920's - 1930's. Criminal gangs were using automatic guns to commit crimes. This was glorified in the press. Citizens were scared and it was a lot easier to pass some laws restricting and demonizing machineguns that it was for law enforcement to actually enforce the law.

It's all about appeasing the masses when your government doesn't know what else to do.

cannonfire · March 1, 2010, 12:32 PM

Ok, I'm glad I'm not an idiot and that I am preaching to the choir... in that case

Hey Obama, I'm voting for some "change"

hogdogs · March 1, 2010, 01:03 PM

And the "tax stamp" also was another federal tax evasion charge they could use to make the file thicker on organized gangsters. They rarely had any concrete evidence of actual crimes other than the "books" the gangsters kept. So another tax evasion charge looked good in court...

Also, the average joe couldn't afford the tax stamp so if they had or obtained a "controlled" weapon, they too faced federal charges easier to prosecute as tax evasion than to expect a jury to convict as the times were different and 2A infringements were very new on the large scale.

well that is my uneducated redneck guess of the original intent of the "tax stamp" rules.

ScottRiqui · March 1, 2010, 01:10 PM

Has the NFA tax for things like supressors and full-autos always been $200? It's a chunk of change now to be sure, but back when the NFA first passed, it would have been downright outrageous.

EDIT - Never mind, I found the answer. the NFA tax has been $200 ever since the Act passed in 1934. If the tax were to have been adjusted for inflation over the past 76 years, it would be about $3200 now.

hogdogs · March 1, 2010, 01:14 PM

I think, if not $200 back then, it is now at the lowest % of annual income than ever before in the history of NFA...
Brent

Old Grump · March 1, 2010, 03:18 PM

Gun control by taxation pure and simple. If you cannot pass the security check and cannot afford the tax stamps you are effectively barred from that weapon or device. Best yet the government gets to demonize you with a criminal record if you don't play byt their unconstitutional rules and bar you from legally owning any firearm. A liberals dream that should be applied to all of us not stupid enough to be afraid of guns.

gyvel · March 1, 2010, 07:48 PM

There was also some ethnic bigotry behind the NFAs as well as the Sullivan Law, whereby the indirect intent was to keep guns out of the hands of Italians.

February 28, 2010, 04:45 PM	#1
cannonfire Senior Member Join Date: February 12, 2010 Location: Georgia Posts: 556	Call me crazy about the law... So I was talking about the rules of owning an automatic weapon... The tax, registered before 1986, etc. with a guy at work and we got to breaking it down. Does regulating automatic weapons really create a "safer" environment? For instance, IF I were a bad guy on the streets and I wanted an automatic AK47, I'd be able to find one. But for good citizens who want to add FA to their collections, we have to pay outrageous prices and look for a gun that is older than I am... Being that the co-worker and I are both ex-military (I'm still in) I said that a well trained person with a semi-automatic rifle could be just as effective as an untrained criminal with an automatic AK47 Just looking for a reason why owning an FA is such a hassel

March 1, 2010, 01:10 PM	#9
ScottRiqui Senior Member Join Date: January 27, 2010 Location: Norfolk, VA Posts: 2,905	Has the NFA tax for things like supressors and full-autos always been $200? It's a chunk of change now to be sure, but back when the NFA first passed, it would have been downright outrageous. EDIT - Never mind, I found the answer. the NFA tax has been $200 ever since the Act passed in 1934. If the tax were to have been adjusted for inflation over the past 76 years, it would be about $3200 now. Last edited by ScottRiqui; March 1, 2010 at 01:16 PM.

March 1, 2010, 03:18 PM	#11
Old Grump Member in memoriam Join Date: April 9, 2009 Location: Blue River Wisconsin, in Posts: 3,144	Gun control by taxation pure and simple. If you cannot pass the security check and cannot afford the tax stamps you are effectively barred from that weapon or device. Best yet the government gets to demonize you with a criminal record if you don't play byt their unconstitutional rules and bar you from legally owning any firearm. A liberals dream that should be applied to all of us not stupid enough to be afraid of guns. __________________ Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern will, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. --Daniel Webster--

February 28, 2010, 04:49 PM	#2
Schneiderman Member Join Date: November 3, 2009 Posts: 41	I would argue that an untrained person with a semi auto is probably more effective than a criminal with a full auto... No, I can't give you any reasons for any of these ridiculous regulations, there aren't any.

February 28, 2010, 11:57 PM	#4
David Hineline Senior Member Join Date: December 23, 1999 Location: South Sioux City, Nebraska Posts: 704	Maybe it has something to do with collecting taxes.

March 1, 2010, 08:42 AM	#6
Skans Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2008 Posts: 11,132	It goes back to the 1920's - 1930's. Criminal gangs were using automatic guns to commit crimes. This was glorified in the press. Citizens were scared and it was a lot easier to pass some laws restricting and demonizing machineguns that it was for law enforcement to actually enforce the law. It's all about appeasing the masses when your government doesn't know what else to do.

March 1, 2010, 12:32 PM	#7
cannonfire Senior Member Join Date: February 12, 2010 Location: Georgia Posts: 556	Ok, I'm glad I'm not an idiot and that I am preaching to the choir... in that case Hey Obama, I'm voting for some "change"

March 1, 2010, 01:03 PM	#8
hogdogs Staff In Memoriam Join Date: October 31, 2007 Location: Western Florida panhandle Posts: 11,069	And the "tax stamp" also was another federal tax evasion charge they could use to make the file thicker on organized gangsters. They rarely had any concrete evidence of actual crimes other than the "books" the gangsters kept. So another tax evasion charge looked good in court... Also, the average joe couldn't afford the tax stamp so if they had or obtained a "controlled" weapon, they too faced federal charges easier to prosecute as tax evasion than to expect a jury to convict as the times were different and 2A infringements were very new on the large scale. well that is my uneducated redneck guess of the original intent of the "tax stamp" rules.

March 1, 2010, 01:14 PM	#10
hogdogs Staff In Memoriam Join Date: October 31, 2007 Location: Western Florida panhandle Posts: 11,069	I think, if not $200 back then, it is now at the lowest % of annual income than ever before in the history of NFA... Brent

March 1, 2010, 07:48 PM	#12
gyvel Senior Member Join Date: August 30, 2009 Location: Northern AZ Posts: 7,172	There was also some ethnic bigotry behind the NFAs as well as the Sullivan Law, whereby the indirect intent was to keep guns out of the hands of Italians.