$1,000 tax on handguns

[g.willikers]

Apparently there's more ways to circumvent the US Constitution.
Can't pass a law that doesn't violate handgun ownership?
A federal judge strikes down the attempted law.
No problem, just tax it so high hardly anyone can buy one.
Didn't the Greatest Generation fight and die to wrestle this place away from fascists?
http://freebeacon.com/issues/mariana...-1000-gun-tax/

[A pause for the COZ]

Dont they know that all this will do is encourage smuggling?
Every time they pull this stuff they just empower the criminal element.

[BarryLee]

Every time they pull this stuff they just empower the criminal element

Strangely enough they seem to be less worried about the criminal element than they are law abiding gun owners. Listen as they attack the NRA Members and blame us for crime and violence while saying almost nothing about the people actually committing those crimes. No, the issue isn’t crime the issue is disarming their perceived opponents.

[kilimanjaro]

With US protection you get US laws. Maybe we should end the Trust Territory mandate and let the Chinese sail in whenever they feel like it.

[A pause for the COZ]

Here is the thing though. Its not an executive order that's imposing the tax.
its their legislature that's doing it.
They voted for them, Now they are getting what they deserve.

Thats why you have to educate, educate and fight for every vote.
Sooner or latter we will be in the same boat. The masses will gleefully vote away our freedom for some preconceived notion of security.

[A pause for the COZ]

Originally Posted by BarryLee

Strangely enough they seem to be less worried about the criminal element than they are law abiding gun owners. Listen as they attack the NRA Members and blame us for crime and violence while saying almost nothing about the people actually committing those crimes. No, the issue isn’t crime the issue is disarming their perceived opponents.

Makes you wonder some times.
Imagine were we would be had they never passed prohibition.
We would still be able to buy some Tommy guns and the FBI would still only be an investigation service unarmed with no arrest powers.

[TXAZ]

We worked with NMI guys on a national project.
I'll be tactful and just note that maybe that's one place the citizens *shouldn't* be encouraged to have guns (or sticks, rocks or any hard objects weighing more than a few ounces).
It's a ***REALLY*** different mindset.

[SHR970]

Same as an unreasonable Poll Tax. Even the Ninth Circus is likely to overturn THAT one.

[dakota.potts]

Well, on the off chance that this one gets to court and is struck down as an unconstitutional tax on a natural right, I suppose that could be used to put judicial scrutiny on the NFA taxes?

[johnwilliamson062]

to put judicial scrutiny on the NFA taxes?

NFA items aren't in "common use," so are probably not protected. At least that is how I understand it. There is a lot of work being done to bring suppressors/silencers into "common use," but even that is a stretch at current.

[kilimanjaro]

I can't see a court declaring silencers to be in common use and voiding the NFA requirements without doing the same for automatic weapons, they are also in common usage where permitted and restricted in numbers only by fiat, not by demand.

Look for any action on silencers to come through Congress.

[johnwilliamson062]

Nationwide push to allow suppressors for game hunting.
"sporting purpose" and "common use"
That is why you should support those efforts in your state irrespective on your stance regarding use in sport hunting.
As ideologically offensive as I find the "sporting purpose" angle, just typing that brought that basic waterbrash pre-vomit taste into my mouth, I'm pragmatic enough to get behind it.
I've heard, but have no hard data, sales increase significantly in states allowing it. That helps with common use.
I think there is considerable precedent for challenging specific parts of a law without challenging a law in its entirety.

they are also in common usage where permitted

There is no way to increase automatic weapon numbers as the registry is closed. The number can only go down as firearms are destroyed. I would be surprised if many would agree that automatic weapons are in common usage in any state in the US by those affected by the registry closing. I think there were numbers posted here recently indicating one state, Wyoming, had 1/10,000 persons and the rest were considerably less. That is from memory and I don't care to look it up. The reason they are not in common use is obvious, but, legally, no one who matters is interested in any aspect of the issue.
NRA has shown absolutely no interest in pursuing the issue. I would be surprised if NRA would issue a clear public statement indicating they are opposed to the registry closure. My understanding is, at least as of a few years ago, SAF has indicated it is very low priority until other issues are resolved with further groundwork laid and will only be considered currently if a PERFECT case comes along. I don't think any state groups both have the resources and are interested. Several issue specific groups have started and floundered. The NFA owner groups don't strongly support any changes as their members would lose considerable value of their assets. Consider one member here who has, by my estimation, over $500,000 worth of automatics and possibly over a $1,000,000. If restrictions were removed he would likely lose hundreds of thousands of dollars as they are reduced to 1/10th or less of their value. Some owners don't care about that loss saying they would love to be able to buy more, but others do worry about their "investment".
Automatics seem to be an absolutely dead issue at this time. I say this as someone who has offered money to any group(s) capable and willing to pick up the banner. If anyone knows a competent group willing to take on the registry closing, I'd love to know about it.

[44 AMP]

to put judicial scrutiny on the NFA taxes?

If you truly love NFA weapons, I would think the LAST thing you want to do is put the NFA taxes in the public eye!

Those taxes haven't been changed since 1934. And while $200 was HUGE in 1934 (deliberately so), its not so much today. Whip out your inflation calculators and see what that $200 is in today's dollars!


The High court are masters of saying what they mean, but what they say, and mean is not always what we, the public is told what they mean. Particularly in firearms cases.

The "in common use" phrasing from Heller is one example. Most people think the court said that it is constitutional to restrict arms that are not "in common use". (in effect saying that since NFA arms are not in common use its ok to restrict them, seeming to ignore the fact that the reason they are not in common use is that they ARE restricted..)

However, that ISN"T exactly what the court said. To understand what they meant, you have to understand the (usually unwritten) context. The apparent upholding of restrictions on arms "not in common use" is an overbroad take on a very specific statement, taken out of context.

The High court ruled on a specific law in a specific case, and was not ruling on other laws at that time. What was said, essentially was "since we are not looking at other laws at this time, we shall assume the laws covering arms not in common use are valid" This is entirely within the court's authority, to assume ALL laws are valid UNTIL/unless they are brought to the court for review.

This does not mean that the laws ARE constitutionally valid, ONLY that they are assumed to be, UNTIL the court rules otherwise on them. And for that to happen, a case must come before the court, AND the court agree to hear it.

They did a similar thing back in the day with the Miller case, the decision on which the NFA 34 stands. Do some research and you will find that the Miller case was completely botched by our side, in fact the defense didn't even show up! NO evidence was presented against the Govt's case.

And that is what the Supreme Court ruled. They ruled that since no evidence had been presented, the Govt's case stood. They did NOT rule the NFA was Constitutional, they ruled that they had been presented no evidence that it was not.

What everyone assumed, and has said ever since is that the Court "upheld" the NFA, and therefore it was constitutional.

This has lead us to our present situation. The $1000 tax was passed by their legislature, and appears it will be the law. The intent clearly seems punitive to me, and might be fought in court, but, UNTIL it is settled by our court system it will BE the law.

[barnbwt]

No problem, just tax it so high hardly anyone can buy one.
Didn't the Greatest Generation fight and die to wrestle this place away from fascists?

You mean their parents? Yeah, the Greatest Generation never fought for any of that, and actually were directly responsible for passing the gun laws of the sixties in knee-jerk response to social unrest & assassinations. In fact, once kicked-off by the 34 NFA, the Greatest Generation were at the helm and directing the rise (and fall) of the Gun Control movement to ban civilian firearms in this nation.

The 1934 NFA passed by the previous generation (and the same one actually running the WWII effort, though they don't get credit for winning the war as much) did exactly what you describe. Machineguns and pistols were to be made prohibitively expensive so undesirable immigrants, minorities, and political groups could not oppose the government or possess a practical means for self defense from their toadies. Silencers were treated similarly so the public could not poach on federal land to sustain itself during the darkest depths of the Depression.

If you truly love NFA weapons, I would think the LAST thing you want to do is put the NFA taxes in the public eye!

I think you vastly underestimate how much more awareness there is on NFA weapons than at any point in history. Any gun ban is untenable in this political climate. There is no way any more registries will be closed (quite the contrary, actually), additional items added to NFA, or the 'tax' raised to the inflation-adjusted $2300 (and counting)

Ironically, an inflation adjustment might provide a means to contest the insanely long ATF processing times for tax stamps; a four month wait intended to disenfranchise is one thing (apparently), but a long wait intended for the same that also costs you more money is 'damages'

It's coming to a head. The legal arguments are piling up faster than the ATF can handwave them away, and are rapidly painting themselves into a corner. Two scenarios are likely; we begin to stop enforcement of these laws as a way of avoiding the constitutional inconsistencies (i.e. where marijuana is heading) or we start getting increasingly aggressive court rulings that dismember the enforcement authority. A New Orleans court already appears poised to strike down or enjoin the closure of the machine gun registry as I type...

TCB

[pnac]

According to my handy dandy inflation calculator (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com), $200 in 1934 would equal $3538.97 in today's dollars.

[Tinbucket]

It should be thrown out in Court if it passes. It would amount to forbidding the purchase of handguns to most Citizens.
As far as NFA the Hughes Amendment did not pass, but was put on the books..
There's a good? chance that the Trump Administration will take it off the books, as not legal.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by TXAZ

We worked with NMI guys on a national project.
I'll be tactful and just note that maybe that's one place the citizens *shouldn't* be encouraged to have guns (or sticks, rocks or any hard objects weighing more than a few ounces).
It's a ***REALLY*** different mindset.

Could you elaborate on what makes the mindset so different? You've got me curious.

[ATN082268]

An excessive tax on handguns should be struck down by the courts but I'm not sure it will be as the courts in general seem to be pretty anti-gun. Any excessive tax on guns would be like an excessive tax on free speech (such as the internet, newspapers, etc). While placing an excessive tax on any Constitutional right should be struck down by the courts, the courts may rule that as long as you have access to some kind of gun, your 2nd Amendment rights are being upheld; that kind of reasoning is like saying as long as you can still talk about some topic, that your 1st Amendment rights are being upheld.

[Armorer-at-Law]

Well, on the off chance that this one gets to court and is struck down as an unconstitutional tax on a natural right, I suppose that could be used to put judicial scrutiny on the NFA taxes?

It amazes me how few know (and of those who know, how few care) that there is already a 10% federal tax on all handguns and 11% on all long guns and ammunition. See Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (FAET): http://www.ttb.gov/firearms/reference_guide.shtml. This tax is paid by the manufacturer, so it is already in the wholesale price of the firearm or ammunition.

(FAET was first imposed in 1919. The Pitmann-Robertson Act of 1937 mandated that all revenue from FAET and related excise taxes be earmarked for hunting related activities. The United States Fish and Wildlife Commission places revenue that is collected in a trust fund that is administered on behalf of the states.)

[44 AMP]

Are you also aware that the Pittman-Robertson tax is applied to bows, arrows, and fishing poles as well? Probably some other "sporting" equipment, too.

There is a significant difference between something like a $1,000 tax, imposed as a punitive measure, an attempt to "price pistols out of the market" and a (reasonable) tax imposed at the wholesale level, used to support conservation work for fish & game, and supported by the industry at the time of, and ever since its passage.

[ChuckS]

The 'fishing' parallel of Pittman-Robertson was enacted in 1950 as the Dingell-Johnson Act.

Both of these have done more for wildlife conservation than all the anti's-hunting / fishing efforts combined.

[DaleA]

It amazes me how few know (and of those who know, how few care) that there is already a 10% federal tax on all handguns and 11% on all long guns and ammunition.

Nope. I did NOT know that. Thank you for posting.

[James K]

The original National Firearms Act, drawn up by FDR's humorless, nut-case Attorney General, Homer Cummings, imposed taxes and registration on all guns and ammunition. I don't recall the exact numbers, but it was something like $50 for a shotgun, $200 for a rifle, $500 for a handgun and $1000 for a machine gun. In addition, each shotgun shell was taxed at $1, .22 at $50, rifle ammo at $2 a round, and handgun ammo at $5. Silencers and other stuff was taxed like machine guns.

It is often forgotten today, but FDR was very anti-gun. Some say that he planned to order the army to disperse Congress and take over as dictator - a common idea in the world at the time (1934), remember - and there is evidence to support that view. He never went the whole way, though he became president for life, but we got the NFA, the first FEDERAL gun "control" law.

I think the inflation calculator used above is off a bit, and the real rate in purchasing power would be closer to 30:1 2016 dollars vs 1934 dollars, making $200 equal to $6000. The tax was, and was intended to be, prohibitory.

Jim

[44 AMP]

Over the years, sportsmen, through the excise taxes and license fees have contributed millions, if not billions of dollars to conservation works.

All the moneys contributed by animal rights groups "for the animals" go where? What percentage actually gets to benefit animals? I don't know, but I expect somewhat less than 100%.

Excise tax money and license fees, (from the many states where the fees do NOT go into the general fund) go to conservation work.

I have not found any reference to any opposition to the taxes. Both sportsmen groups and the industry supported them. We pay our share, and then some.

[kilimanjaro]

You could take care of yourself and family at better than a subsistence level on $1000 a year in 1934. That $200 was ten per cent of the price of a new house on a town lot. Big bucks in those days. This is why the Bonus Army, veterans who were promised $20 a year upon application in 1945, formed together and marched on Washington DC in the hope of receiving a sum about equal to the NFA tax, although they certainly did not want the money to register war trophies.