The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 27, 2012, 11:27 PM   #226
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
This bill is too confusing

Edit: THEY USED THE TERM "ASSAULT PISTOLS" AHAHAHAHA

This can't be real
__________________
I told the new me,
"Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'"
But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back."
Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor
Dr Big Bird PhD is offline  
Old December 28, 2012, 02:02 AM   #227
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
Ah, but that was always the point of the NFA. I suspect that even in the midst of the Great Depression and New Deal, the drafters of the NFA knew that they'd be on shaky Constitutional ground with an outright ban, so instead they chose to regulate so heavily as to create a de facto ban. As bad as $200 per gun sounds in today's dollars, it would have been a small fortune in 1934 dollars (the amount has not changed). Adjusted for inflation, $200 in 1934 would be roughly equivalent to $3,300 in 2011.
Legislator used to discuss the constitutionality of laws quite frequently.

From the National Firearms Act hearings before the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, April 16, 1934:

Quote:
page 13
Mr. McClintic (D-OK) I would like to ask just one question. I am very much interested in this subject. What in your opinion would be the constitutionality of a provision added to this bill which would require registration, on the part of those who now own the type or class of weapons that are included in this bill?
Attorney General Cummings We were afraid of that, sir.
Mr. McClintic (D-OK) Afraid it would conflict with State laws?
Attorney General Cummings I am afraid it would be unconstitutional.

page 19
Mr. Lewis (D-MD) I hope the courts will find no doubt on a subject like this, General; but I was curious to know how we escaped that provision in the Constitution (the Second Amendment).
Attorney General Cummings Oh, we did not attempt to escape it. We are dealing with another power, namely, the power of taxation, and of regulation under the inter-state commerce clause. You see, if we made a statute absolutely forbidding any human being to have a machine gun, you might say there is some constitutional question involved. But when you say "We will tax the machine gun" and when you say that "the absence of a license showing payment of the tax has been made indicates that a crime has been perpetrated", you are easily within the law.
And the legislators well fully aware that the NFA tax would be essentially confiscatory.

Quote:
page 12
Mr. Cooper (D-TN) In that connection, would you be prepared to give us some information as to the average cost of one of these machine guns?
Attorney General Cummings The cost now is about $200.
Mr. Cooper (D-TN) That is, delivered to the purchaser?
Attorney General Cummings Yes, sir.
Mr. Cooper (D-TN) Then the proposed tax of $200 --
Attorney General Cummings Would be about a 100-percent tax.
Mr. Cooper (D-TN) About a 100-percent tax?
Attorney General Cummings Yes, sir.
gc70 is offline  
Old December 28, 2012, 02:15 AM   #228
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
I shudder to think what the cost of such a program would be, and how many decades it would take to process all the paperwork.
You know that is a really good point. They should let her take her bill to the floor totally unmodified or mitigated. If it is indigestible it will die a quick death. "Reasonable" restrictions would be much more onerous.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old December 28, 2012, 03:23 AM   #229
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,442
One aspect of Feinstein's proposal seems totally unworkable: can you imagine several million "assault weapons" added to the NFA registry and the ATF then trying to process approvals for interstate transportation of those guns.
gc70 is offline  
Old December 28, 2012, 07:44 AM   #230
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,376
Ok - the NFA stamp is a tax stamp and it's presently $200.00

My big question is, who sets that price and how high can it be set?

I'm asking that as a smoker that's paying roughly $38.00 tax on a $2.00 item.
Hal is offline  
Old December 28, 2012, 08:02 AM   #231
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,071
Hal, I am worried they would say... "OOPS we never adjusted that tax for inflation etc. so it is now $4,000 for each item..."

Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Old December 28, 2012, 08:22 AM   #232
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
I worried that nicotine addiction is going to kill Hal, but I'm not in favor of passing laws to force him to quit.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
(>_<)
nate45 is online now  
Old December 28, 2012, 08:30 AM   #233
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Unlike any other item of personal property "arms" are a protected item under the Bill of Rights. To my mind this means "arms" in common use must stay at a tax rate that allows the to continue to be in common use.. Also the fingerprinting, photographing and whatever else they may add places a undo burden on the right.

I am not a lawyer and I know I'm idealistic but this legislation is well beyond the bounds of sanity IMHO.
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old December 28, 2012, 08:42 AM   #234
JWT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 2,976
Existing ARs - including M1 carbines - grandfathered, registered, taxed. Upon death of owner have to be surrendered to the government and destroyed.

Sounds a lot like confiscation to me.
JWT is offline  
Old December 28, 2012, 09:07 AM   #235
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
We've been doing pretty good on the legal front lately. Maybe this will all lead to a monumental decision, in which for example the M4 is recognized as the modern equivalent of the muskets of colonial times. Its unlikely, but its always good for a laugh when their plans backfire on them.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
(>_<)
nate45 is online now  
Old December 28, 2012, 09:44 AM   #236
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,376
Quote:
"OOPS we never adjusted that tax for inflation etc. so it is now $4,000 for each item..."
That's my very thought...who "they" are and just how much authority "they" have to set and/or raise the tax.
Hal is offline  
Old December 28, 2012, 10:37 AM   #237
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,273
Quote:
Ok - the NFA stamp is a tax stamp and it's presently $200.00... My big question is, who sets that price and how high can it be set?
AFAIK the $200 amount was fixed by statute in 1934, and the statute does not provide any regulatory mechanism for adjusting the tax, other than subsequent action by Congress.

IOW there is no upper limit, and as pointed out in gc70's post, the $200 amount was originally intended to be confiscatory. One interesting historical footnote is that the NFA reportedly prompted gun stores to dump affected inventory at huge losses before the law went into effect, to avoid being stuck with essentially unsaleable items and having to comply with the new mandates. (IIRC this was referenced in the Heller decision of all places!)
Quote:
"OOPS we never adjusted that tax for inflation etc. so it is now $4,000 for each item..."
FWIW according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, $200 in 1934 dollars is equal to $3,436 in 2012 dollars.

This is one of the fundamental reasons why the NFA is the third rail of American gun politics.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old December 28, 2012, 11:32 AM   #238
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,106
Well, after Kay Bailey H. in TX started to babble about clips and AWs - blah, blah - I wrote to her to point out the fallacies of such babble.

Her (computer) reply:

Quote:
Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding gun control legislation. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.
While we all support the strongest measures to ensure that guns do not end up in the wrong hands, I believe that one of the most powerful deterrents we have is the consistent, full enforcement of the numerous laws that already address many aspects of the problem. For instance, there are more than a dozen laws at the state and federal level that deal with the use, carrying, ownership, or trafficking of guns, and we must prosecute without qualification those who violate these laws.
Rather than usurping the rights of law-abiding citizens, I believe we should vigorously prosecute those who use guns to commit crimes. I have worked to enact federal anti-crime legislation that imposes tough minimum sentences on those convicted of using firearms to commit crimes, prevents early parole for violent criminals, and provides federal funds to build new prisons and fund local law enforcement. I will continue to support legislation that fights crime and upholds our Second Amendment rights.
On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the individual right to keep and bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller. I submitted an amicus brief to the Court in support of affirming the District of Columbia's gun ban as unconstitutional, and was joined by 55 Senators, 250 House members, and the Vice President of the United States. This historic decision will affect gun laws throughout the country that try to unjustly undermine our rights under the Second Amendment.

I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue of concern to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator
Get a better program and at least enter my name. I'm glad the computer supports gun rights but she's gone anyway.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old December 28, 2012, 12:02 PM   #239
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabama
Quote:
I shudder to think what the cost of such a program would be, and how many decades it would take to process all the paperwork.
You know that is a really good point. They should let her take her bill to the floor totally unmodified or mitigated. If it is indigestible it will die a quick death. "Reasonable" restrictions would be much more onerous.
I fear that, with emotions running as high as they are, this will be another "we have to pass the bill so that we can find out what's in it" situations.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old December 28, 2012, 12:10 PM   #240
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,273
I don't think Kay Bailey's computer has been updated to address her new political realities.

As I said in the other (closed) KBH thread, I think she may be preparing to retire into an elder stateswoman role, but it's subsequently occurred to me that she may be preparing to run for Governor after switching parties! How ironic it would be to have an incumbent who switched parties to increase his chances, facing off against a challenger who switched parties to increase her chances...
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old December 28, 2012, 12:52 PM   #241
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,767
Quote:
I fear that, with emotions running as high as they are, this will be another "we have to pass the bill so that we can find out what's in it" situations.
Since you brought up the Pelosi quote regarding the AFA, it bears mentioning that the political climate is different now than it was then. In 2009 and 2010, both houses of Congress were controlled by the Democrat party and even so, the Senate had to resort to budget reconciliation in order to prevent a filibuster. It is doubtful that Feinstein can even count on enough Democrat votes to support this to pass it, much less enough Republican votes to prevent a filibuster. Even if she is able to get it through the Senate, it then must go through the House where its chances of passage are even less.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old December 28, 2012, 01:36 PM   #242
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,699
Webleymkv, that's a fair point, and I hope you're right.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old December 28, 2012, 02:14 PM   #243
Kimio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Utah
Posts: 755
Well January is right around the corner, we'll have to wait and see what Obama, Biden and the rest of the hyena's come up with as a "solution" to all these tragedies.

I just hope we're all right about anything that is attempted to be passed being blocked by the house. We are treading in shark infested waters right now or so it seems.
Kimio is offline  
Old December 28, 2012, 02:20 PM   #244
MagnumWill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2009
Location: Central Colorado
Posts: 692
I did just recently read an article (not sure where, I think NY Times) that was speaking of obstacles to gun control. They stated (Wish I could quote it, can't find it anymore) that there is specific legislation put in place to bar the ATF from developing a firearms registry of who owns a firearm. I think the only leverage it has over people is in NFA land, but this would essentially develop the registry that isn't allowed since it would be so widespread... If someone knows which article I'm talking about, please post it .
__________________
Generally speaking holes in anti-gun theories are called "facts."
-Madcap_Magician
MagnumWill is offline  
Old December 28, 2012, 02:24 PM   #245
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
FOPA 1986 prohibited registration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm...Protection_Act
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old December 28, 2012, 02:55 PM   #246
breakingcontact
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 736
Believe that applies to non-NFA firearms...what's to keep things from being moved into NFA classification?
breakingcontact is offline  
Old December 28, 2012, 02:58 PM   #247
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
The NFA has specific writings to ensure that nearly all weapons fall into specific categories. The whole act would have to be rewritten to change it.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old December 28, 2012, 03:34 PM   #248
tulsamal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2004
Location: Vinita, OK
Posts: 2,448
I have the ABC News app on my iPhone. A day or two ago there was a piece entitled, "The One Man Who Might Stop Gun Control in the Senate." I clicked on it and was delighted to see they were talking about my favorite Senator... Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn. They listed out various things he has stopped in the past and speculated that he would be willing to do it again.

I've been wishing for years now that we had more Senators that were as fiscally conservative as Senator Coburn. He is that very rare politician who votes to reduce programs and spending EVEN WHEN passing the bill would put money into his district or state. He has taken a lot of flak for it in OK when he voted against bills that would have funded some OK project. But he is consistent, we must explain how we will pay for it first.

Hopefully he will be able to link up with some other like-thinking Senators and filibuster anything that is introduced.

The sad thing is that he has already announced this is his final term. He won't be running for reelection. He is going to go back and resume his medical practice. We will DEEPLY miss him when he is gone. And I mean all of us, not just people in OK.

Gregg
tulsamal is offline  
Old December 28, 2012, 07:47 PM   #249
orsogato
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 1999
Location: Steeler Country
Posts: 546
Refresh my constitutional scholarship, but don't all new tax bills need to originate in the House of Representatives? See Article I Section 7:

"Section. 7.

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives."

Of course these socialists care as much about Article I Section 7 as they do Amendment 2.

A new tax on millions of existing firearms would be a revenue bill, no?
orsogato is offline  
Old December 28, 2012, 08:36 PM   #250
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,071
With the supreme court calling the costs of the health care thing a tax that whole thing about where a bill originates is never going to make mean much I am afraid
hogdogs is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15599 seconds with 8 queries