The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > NFA Guns and Gear

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old March 20, 2018, 10:25 AM   #1
ferg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2006
Posts: 135
$500 tax stamps?

HR5103
Time to start writing your Congressman/women

Looks like raising cost to all FFL and SOT's as well as striking $200 tax stamps and making them $500 tax stamps, raising taxes on importers and ammunition

I'm surprised this hasn't popped up yet



SILENCER SATURDAY #11: Do You Want $500 NFA Tax Stamps? - The Firearm Blog
__________________
Some idiots are too busy knowing it all to ever learn anything
ferg is offline  
Old March 20, 2018, 04:13 PM   #2
TruthTellers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 22, 2016
Posts: 2,189
Clearly trying to set the stage so in the future all AR's and other "Assault Rifles" will be NFA regulated and the $500 tax will be the norm.

I would oppose this vociferously, but if a future Congress controlled by a certain party is bound and determined to ram through gun control, they're going to do it.

Guess I should buy a crate of Anderson lowers next time they're on sale for 30 or 40 bucks.
__________________
Any good revolver > Any good semi auto
TruthTellers is offline  
Old March 20, 2018, 04:18 PM   #3
hdwhit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 22, 2017
Posts: 968
Quote:
TruthTellers wrote:
Clearly trying to set the stage so in the future all AR's and other "Assault Rifles" will be NFA regulated and the $500 tax will be the norm.
I don't know that upping the tax from $200 to $500 is a harbinger of bringing semi-auto ARs under the NFA.

Quote:
Guess I should buy a crate of Anderson lowers next time they're on sale for 30 or 40 bucks.
But, let's assume you're right. Why do you think that existing firearms would be grandfathered in tax-free? The law could easily end up being written so that you get to keep your AR provided you register it and pay the tax. In that case you'd be looking at shelling out thousands of dollars to keep those $40 lowers.
hdwhit is offline  
Old March 20, 2018, 04:26 PM   #4
hdwhit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 22, 2017
Posts: 968
Quote:
ferg wrote:
HR5103
I'd be more concerned about the proposed 50% tax on ammunition than increasing some FFL's license fee from $200 to $500.
hdwhit is offline  
Old March 20, 2018, 05:53 PM   #5
TruthTellers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 22, 2016
Posts: 2,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by hdwhit View Post
I don't know that upping the tax from $200 to $500 is a harbinger of bringing semi-auto ARs under the NFA.



But, let's assume you're right. Why do you think that existing firearms would be grandfathered in tax-free? The law could easily end up being written so that you get to keep your AR provided you register it and pay the tax. In that case you'd be looking at shelling out thousands of dollars to keep those $40 lowers.
It's a backdoor, sneaky way for them to get an exorbitant tax and slow approval process tacked on to the boogeyman AR rifle. Thing is, nobody is going to be paying attention to changes to the NFA because it's such a small number of people who have NFA regulated guns. The NRA has already shown they couldn't give two flips about NFA guns, if anything THEY WANT MORE ADDED TO THE NFA!

As for my situation, lets just say if the zeitgeist in government is to make me into a criminal, then they'll get what they want. I'll flip them to people desperate to have an AR... for a hefty sum of course.
__________________
Any good revolver > Any good semi auto
TruthTellers is offline  
Old March 20, 2018, 08:42 PM   #6
Mobuck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2010
Posts: 6,385
That SUCKS seriously
Mobuck is offline  
Old March 21, 2018, 07:03 AM   #7
agtman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2001
Location: midwest
Posts: 2,023
Quote:
HR5103 ... I'd be more concerned about the proposed 50% tax on ammunition than increasing some FFL's license fee from $200 to $500.
No, the $500 tax would apply to new tax stamps issued for NFA toys. So instead of paying the BATFE the current $200 (plus submitting all the duplicate paperwork) for a can for your .22 rimfire rifle, you'd be enclosing a check for $500.

Any increase in the licensing fees to hold an FFL or SOT dealer's license is a separate issue.
agtman is offline  
Old March 21, 2018, 07:49 AM   #8
Theohazard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthTellers
nobody is going to be paying attention to changes to the NFA because it's such a small number of people who have NFA regulated guns.
It’s true that gun owners who have NFA-regulated guns are in the minority, but there are still a lot out there. Silencer ownership has exploded in the last few decades, especially in the last several years. Heck, Ruger even sells two different silencers. Most gun owners know about the $200 tax stamp, even if they don’t own any NFA firearms and don’t know anything else about the process of getting one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthTellers
The NRA has already shown they couldn't give two flips about NFA guns
Huh? Haven’t you seen how much the NRA has been championing the Hearing Protection Act to get silencers removed from the NFA?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthTellers
if anything THEY WANT MORE ADDED TO THE NFA!
Again: Huh? Show us where they’ve said that. And no, I’m not interested in some quote from decades ago; the NRA was a different organization back then. No, you used the present tense “want”, so prove your allegation that the current leadership of the NRA wants more guns added to the NFA.
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume."
Theohazard is offline  
Old March 24, 2018, 10:03 AM   #9
johnwilliamson062
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,996
NFA enacted in 1934. In today's dollars the original $200 is a couple of grand. I have long been in favor of removing suppressors, possibly SBR and SBS or at least loosening las on them, then raising and re-opening the registry for MGs.
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old March 24, 2018, 08:38 PM   #10
TruthTellers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 22, 2016
Posts: 2,189
Quote:
Again: Huh? Show us where they’ve said that. And no, I’m not interested in some quote from decades ago; the NRA was a different organization back then. No, you used the present tense “want”, so prove your allegation that the current leadership of the NRA wants more guns added to the NFA.
The NRA is are the ones who wanted the ATF and thus the DOJ to reclassify bump stocks.
__________________
Any good revolver > Any good semi auto
TruthTellers is offline  
Old March 24, 2018, 08:56 PM   #11
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 3,407
Considering the price of suppressors and Class3 weapons, I’m likely to buy another suppressor even with a $500 tag.
__________________
!أنا لست إرهابياً
TXAZ is offline  
Old March 24, 2018, 10:18 PM   #12
Theohazard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthTellers
The NRA is are the ones who wanted the ATF and thus the DOJ to reclassify bump stocks.
You said that the NRA wants more guns added to the NFA. But the NRA never once advocated adding bump stocks to the NFA since that would require new legislation that revised the language of the NFA, which is not what the NRA advocated for.

No, the NRA simply advised that the DoJ look into whether bump stocks actually count as machine guns under the current language of the NFA. Which is actually a good strategic move for gun rights in my opinion. Here's why:

The writing is on the wall for bump stocks. A large majority of the public seems to think they're a huge threat and wants them banned. And at the same time, most gun owners don't have any interest in bump stocks and wouldn't be affected by a ban. So a ban on bump stocks is inevitable. (I want to make it clear I don't -- and won't -- support a ban on bump stocks, I just recognize when we're losing on an issue.)

But, as we all know, any legislation that bans bump stocks can easily be too broad. Every proposed ban on bump stocks I've seen could easily be interpreted as banning anything that can increase a semi-auto's fire rate; things like lighter triggers.

So if bump stocks are simply banned by being considered machine guns under current law, that means congress is far less likely to pass anti-bump stock legislation that is likely to be overly-broad and could negatively affect all sorts of other things.

Here's the problem as I see it: bump stocks simply aren't machine guns under current law, which is why the ATF has ruled that they're legal. An attempt to reclassify them as machine guns under current law will be a sham that probably won't hold up in court. But I think the NRA knows this and is simply using it as a distraction. Which is why I think their call for the DoJ to revisit bump stocks was a good move strategically.
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume."

Last edited by Theohazard; March 24, 2018 at 10:25 PM.
Theohazard is offline  
Old March 25, 2018, 05:26 AM   #13
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,875
Theohazard, the idea that we just allow the ATF to reinterpret them, then go to court and demonstrate their faulty logic is great...right up until you get a court that does not want to admit that bump stocks don't meet the NFA definition and sides with the ATF...and then SCOTUS declines the case.
raimius is offline  
Old March 25, 2018, 08:53 AM   #14
Theohazard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by raimius
Theohazard, the idea that we just allow the ATF to reinterpret them, then go to court and demonstrate their faulty logic is great...right up until you get a court that does not want to admit that bump stocks don't meet the NFA definition and sides with the ATF...and then SCOTUS declines the case.
You're right, that's a risk. But, to me, that outcome is a heck of a lot better than a legislative ban on bump stocks that bans any device that can increase the fire rate of a semi-auto, and therefore ends up banning things like aftermarket triggers.
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume."
Theohazard is offline  
Old March 25, 2018, 10:00 AM   #15
riffraff
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2016
Posts: 301
This would be another instance where it'd be nice, not for the other taxes but for the $500 stamp, if the conservatives pushed deregulating suppressors as part of the tax stamp increase.

What will really happen for now is this bill will fall on it's face, the only thing I'm a little concerned about is Trump has been trying to allocate more $$ to the ATF to process stamps - raising the cost of stamps becomes helpful to that. Of course what would be a lot more logical is stop requiring tax stamps for such a benign item like a suppressor.
riffraff is offline  
Old March 25, 2018, 08:26 PM   #16
Mobuck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2010
Posts: 6,385
Apparently, quite a few folks have more money to spend(waste) on illogical "tax stamps". The NFA act was meant to keep automatic weapons away from gangsters but only handicapped legitimate owners with an onerous fee and absolutely intolerable "waiting period".
Has there EVER been a crime committed with a legally owned suppressor or a crime solved by using the records generated by the "stamping process"? The tax stamp fee process is a crock of crap in modern USA.
Mobuck is offline  
Old April 10, 2018, 03:58 AM   #17
Jdougg92
Member
 
Join Date: June 25, 2014
Posts: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062 View Post
NFA enacted in 1934. In today's dollars the original $200 is a couple of grand. I have long been in favor of removing suppressors, possibly SBR and SBS or at least loosening las on them, then raising and re-opening the registry for MGs.


How would re-opening the mg registry work?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Jdougg92 is offline  
Old April 10, 2018, 06:20 AM   #18
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,295
The full name for the bill is the Gun Violence Prevention and Safe Communities Act of 2018. Yikes. Who'd oppose something with a name like that?

It's sponsored by a nobody and cosponsored by twelve nobodies. I doubt it's going anywhere, but if you want to contact your congresscritter about it, PopVox is an easy way to do so.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 11, 2018, 12:57 PM   #19
Lohman446
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 1,683
I have wanted a silencer for some time. Its not the cost of the silencer that prevents me from owning one or even the cost of the tax stamp. The procedure to get one is a pain (or appears to be when I look at the forms) and is enough to prevent me from going forward in acquiring one.
Lohman446 is offline  
Old April 11, 2018, 01:08 PM   #20
dogtown tom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 2,332
Quote:
Lohman446 I have wanted a silencer for some time. Its not the cost of the silencer that prevents me from owning one or even the cost of the tax stamp. The procedure to get one is a pain (or appears to be when I look at the forms) and is enough to prevent me from going forward in acquiring one.
Fear of the unknown.
1 Go to SilencerShop.com create an account. SS will process all the paperwork and make your transaction almost effortless.
2 Choose the silencer you want. (pricing varies by dealer), if you want to use a trust...throw a Single Shot Trust in the cart for $25 and the $200 tax stamp.
3 Choose the dealer you want to receive the silencer. Those with the "thumbprint" have a fingerprint kiosk.
4 Scan your prints at the dealers kiosk.
5 Upload a "selfie" via the Silencer Shop photo app with your cellphone.
6. Wait 6-8months for ATF to approve,
7. Fill out a Form 4473 at your dealer and go home that day with your toy.

Anyone who says its a pain did it wrong.
__________________
Need a FFL in Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me. $20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers)

Plano, Texas...........the Gun Nut Capitol of Gun Culture, USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE
dogtown tom is offline  
Old April 11, 2018, 01:30 PM   #21
Sharkbite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 2,979
I absolutely agree with the post above. The hardest part of the whole process is the waiting.
Sharkbite is offline  
Old April 11, 2018, 03:02 PM   #22
Lohman446
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 1,683
Wasn't there a form I had to drag up to the county sheriff or such as well? Or do they handle that via mail?
Lohman446 is offline  
Old April 11, 2018, 04:13 PM   #23
Sharkbite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 2,979
Not anymore. After 41f took effect, all you need to do is send a COPY to the local LEO as a notification. They no longer need to “sign off” on the application.
Sharkbite is offline  
Old April 11, 2018, 04:17 PM   #24
dogtown tom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 2,332
Quote:
Lohman446 Wasn't there a form I had to drag up to the county sheriff or such as well? Or do they handle that via mail?
41F removed the CLEO "signoff" effective July 13th, 2016. Now all that is required is CLEO notification....you just mail the CLEO a copy and he can't do a darned thing about it.

Silencer Shop handles everything for you and your dealer.
__________________
Need a FFL in Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me. $20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers)

Plano, Texas...........the Gun Nut Capitol of Gun Culture, USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE
dogtown tom is offline  
Old April 11, 2018, 06:46 PM   #25
FrankenMauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: Potatoes and Hops
Posts: 11,387
Quote:
41F removed the CLEO "signoff" effective July 13th, 2016. Now all that is required is CLEO notification....you just mail the CLEO a copy and he can't do a darned thing about it.
Aye.
I drop mine off in person.
I live in a small city. (Metro area of roughly 65k people, in 45 x 15 miles; with a county population of just 82k.)
The often irritable and unhappy clerks at the counter always perk up when they're handed a Form 1 or Form 4, and give me a good smile. (Again... small city, and in a gun-loving part of the country. )


Even if you don't use Silencer Shop or a similar service, the rest of it is cake:
Get fingerprinted.
Get some photos.
Stop by your local toy store.
Nearly every dealer does the paperwork for you. Even if they don't, they have to fill out more than you anyway. (There's not much to it.)
Mail the application with prints, photos, and check.
Drop off (or mail) the CLEO notification.

Wait....
And wait a lot more....
The wait sucks. But the process is pretty simple. Getting the windshield in my truck replaced is more of an inconvenience than filing a Form 1 or Form 4.
__________________
Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe.
FrankenMauser 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 01:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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 0.12523 seconds with 8 queries