The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: Semi-automatics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Yesterday, 01:23 AM   #26
SamNavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2011
Location: Kauai, HI
Posts: 417
Quote:
There is an 11% tax on the purchase of complete AR15 rifles.
There is more to it. The Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (FAET) is what you are referring to. The FAET is sometimes mistakenly confused with the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 although it is a completely different piece of legislation. The FAWR (never called that) is more commonly referred to as the Pittman–Robertson Act.

The FAET includes an 11% excise tax on ALL LONG-GUNS AND AMMUNITION. Pistols and revolvers are 10%. The Pittman-Roberson Act then takes the money and distributes it for wildlife conservation/preservation/etc...

You can read about Pittman-Robertson here, but basically, the only reason there are wild places in America that have actual wildlife is because of the money we (gun-owning sportsman) pay in the form of this tax:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittma...estoration_Act

The FAET can be read about here:
https://www.ttb.gov/firearms/reference_guide.shtml

If you want your mind blown, read Section II, Subsets D&E. I'm not a lawyer, but essentially it says that a stripped lower sold by itself is not taxable. Individual parts that you buy at the same time as a stripped lower are also not taxable... unless you buy all the parts needed to build a "complete firearm". The definition of what list of parts constitutes a "complete firearm" according to the TTB is open to interpretation.

In any event, all the money from that tax means more delicious animals on the landscape.

There is a similar tax paid by fisherman on rods, tackle, marine fuel, etc... called the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act... or Dingell-Johnson for short.
https://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/FASPORT.HTML
__________________
Living in Hawaii... damned if I don't feel like a criminal just to get permission from the gov't to buy a gun.
SamNavy is offline  
Old Yesterday, 06:05 AM   #27
GarandTd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 15, 2016
Location: Western PA rainforests
Posts: 1,168
Thanks SamNavy. That is a very informative post. I had no idea.
__________________
22lr, 20 gauge, 8mm Mauser, 35 Remington, 30-06, 5.56x45/223, 9mm, 380acp
GarandTd is offline  
Old Yesterday, 08:22 AM   #28
DaveBj
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 15, 2019
Posts: 4
The local range where I have just become a member has a "build your own AR-15" class, $550 ($525 for members). The "I want!" part of my brain immediately sprang into action when I saw that. My older son is also interested and may come up here to take the class with me in the fall.

(There will be a difference between our individual familiarities with the weapon. The last time I touched one -- M16, actually -- was in USAF basic 50 years ago; my son had 23 years in the Army and was armorer in at least one of his assigned units.)

D
DaveBj is offline  
Old Yesterday, 09:13 AM   #29
Fishbed77
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2010
Posts: 4,579
Quote:
You can read about Pittman-Robertson here, but basically, the only reason there are wild places in America that have actual wildlife is because of the money we (gun-owning sportsman) pay in the form of this tax:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittma...estoration_Act
Not to get too far off-topic... I'm not saying this isn't a good use of tax money (as opposed to all the other bad uses), but not all gun owners are sportsmen and -women, and there is something fundamentally wrong with tying firearms purchases to this tax. My guess is a very large percentage of firearms today are not purchased for hunting or any other "sporting" use (nor should they have to be).

Perhaps this tax money should come instead from developers who destroy wildlife habitats? Or companies that pollute our air and waterways? Something to think about.
Fishbed77 is offline  
Old Yesterday, 10:51 AM   #30
GarandTd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 15, 2016
Location: Western PA rainforests
Posts: 1,168
∆∆ I agree ∆∆
__________________
22lr, 20 gauge, 8mm Mauser, 35 Remington, 30-06, 5.56x45/223, 9mm, 380acp
GarandTd is offline  
Old Yesterday, 11:11 AM   #31
riffraff
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2016
Posts: 519
Decide if you want iron sights or an optic, and stick with that unless you pickup a new upper - do not buy an iron sight upper then turn around and start adding goofy mounts to it to run a scope/optic or dumping all sorts of $$ into modifying a basic upper.

I like Aero and like everyone else they have good sales now.

How I buy does not require "building" rather just snapping parts together that come apart for cleaning normally, the way I buy these guns is I pickup a complete lower by ordering from an FFL (I browse online for part numbers/model), then I wait for a sale and buy a complete upper, charging handle, and bolt carrier group - all from the same brand but by doing this I get better deals and exactly the options I want. Part of this is because I only use a local dealer for the less expensive lower that requires a background check, then the rest I buy on sale and they are shipped to me direct.

With Aero AR15 I like their M4E1 stuff, which is a notch above mil spec, adds things like a solid trigger guard and a handguard that secures with 8 threaded torques versus just clamping on. Once you get all the parts a good practice is to stop by a local gunsmith for a headspace check - just verifies your parts fit right together (easy to do yourself too buy for a 1st AR simpler to let someone else tell you).

Another option for complete rifles is Stag - good quality, considered about the same as colt, lifetime warranty, but less $$ than colt.
riffraff is offline  
Old Yesterday, 12:20 PM   #32
SamNavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2011
Location: Kauai, HI
Posts: 417
Quote:
Not to get too far off-topic...
Maybe just a little more... everything you said is worth a thought. Back in 1937, when Pittman-Robertson was signed, it was likely the opposite. A far larger percentage (if not "most") guns and ammunition were bought for the hunting.

My minimal research on the creation of this law was that sportsman overwhelmingly supported it because they knew if they were the ones paying for wildlife and habitat, and were essentially THE ONLY ONES, they'd be able to control it. Even today, it's not lost on your average conservation organization like the Sierra Club, Audubon Society, HSUS etc... that a few million dollars a year in dues can't compete with the taxes on billions of dollars of hunting and fishing equipment when it comes to politics. They know who butters the bread, they just don't agree with how we eat it.
__________________
Living in Hawaii... damned if I don't feel like a criminal just to get permission from the gov't to buy a gun.
SamNavy is offline  
Old Yesterday, 02:27 PM   #33
Fishbed77
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2010
Posts: 4,579
Quote:
Maybe just a little more... everything you said is worth a thought. Back in 1937, when Pittman-Robertson was signed, it was likely the opposite. A far larger percentage (if not "most") guns and ammunition were bought for the hunting.

My minimal research on the creation of this law was that sportsman overwhelmingly supported it because they knew if they were the ones paying for wildlife and habitat, and were essentially THE ONLY ONES, they'd be able to control it. Even today, it's not lost on your average conservation organization like the Sierra Club, Audubon Society, HSUS etc... that a few million dollars a year in dues can't compete with the taxes on billions of dollars of hunting and fishing equipment when it comes to politics. They know who butters the bread, they just don't agree with how we eat it.
Unfortunately, this fits into the false narrative that all civilian firearms purchases must have a "sporting purpose," and that it should fall on the shoulders of gunbuyers as a whole to protect wildlife, biodiversity, and the environment. Even in 1937, this was not the case. We are ALL responsible for this crucial obligation. These monies should be collected, but they should come in the form of hunting license fees for hunters and fishers (I do both) since we harvest the wildlife, and taxes on those who destroy and pollute our ecosystem.

It shouldn't be an added burden for a young woman who needs to protect herself from a violent ex-boyfriend, or a parent who can't afford to live in a nicer neighborhood, but still needs to protect his/her family.

But I don't see this tax going away, because onerous taxes on the exercise of our 2nd Amendment rights are now as American as apple pie.

But to get back on topic, as others have mentioned, buying a separate upper and lower is a good way to save a few bucks, hence my earlier recommendation to get a BCM upper and separate lower of your choice to end up with a very high-quality AR for the price.
Fishbed77 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 04:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.05647 seconds with 10 queries