|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 7, 2008, 09:47 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 574
|
The $200 'Machine Gun Tax' of 1934
I'm considering buying a full auto machine gun with a silencer as a long term investment since my 401K and stocks are still at 50% of what they were 10 years ago LOL. I was pondering the $200 tax that was imposed in 1934. That's not very much money today, but I found a neat calculator online that converted it to '1934 dollars'. Using the Consumer Price Index, $200 back in 1934 was equivalent to $3,096.97 today! I bet that was a big slam back then; not much of an issue today.
|
October 7, 2008, 10:32 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 7, 2007
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 156
|
shhhhhhhh I don't think the Feds have realized this yet.
|
October 7, 2008, 12:58 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Location: Ninja Mall
Posts: 818
|
Weren't we in the midsts of the great depression in 1934? It would make sense for a relatively insignificant amount (to us, now) seem much greater than it was, then.
|
October 7, 2008, 01:32 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2008
Posts: 240
|
You’re nuts if your getting a machinegun for investment purposes, it only take a stroke of a pen to make it worth 0 to anyone but you. Laws could change (both state and federal) that would not allow you to transfer the gun, they could raise the tax to couple thousand. It really isn’t worth it and has been beat to death on some of the machinegun boards.
|
October 7, 2008, 02:39 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 18, 2005
Location: Central Indiana
Posts: 1,981
|
Yeah, don't BS us with the "I want one as an investment" that's like saying you read Playboy for the articles.....
__________________
Silencers have NEVER been illegal ! |
October 7, 2008, 03:40 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 574
|
But seriously, they do have good articles! Actually the investment idea is the excuse I'm going to sell to my wife SHHHHHHHHHH.
|
October 7, 2008, 03:46 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 7, 2007
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 156
|
If the past is any indication of the future, everyone will have a heads up if the "stroke of the pen" happens and stops future transfers. Then we'll really see prices shoot up as people rush to get what they can.
|
October 7, 2008, 03:52 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 574
|
If Resident Evil is any indication of things to come, people will all turn into flesh eating zombies and then I'll be glad I bought my machine gun LOLOL.
|
October 7, 2008, 05:19 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
|
Don't forget the cost of feeding one of these animals. T'aint for the weak hearted.
|
October 7, 2008, 08:51 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,333
|
Don't forget that with Heller and other challenges, the 86 ban might be overturned within a decade or so. Meaning that $20,000 M-16 will be worth $1,500.
FA guns are only valuable because the supply is ARTIFICIALLY limited. That is the ONLY reason they are so valuable.
__________________
I don't carry a gun to go looking for trouble, I carry a gun in case trouble finds me. |
October 8, 2008, 04:10 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
|
Please knock my M16 down to $1,500. Same with my MP5! I wanna P90 and Glock 18 for starters. So yes, kill 922(o).
|
October 8, 2008, 06:27 PM | #12 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: March 11, 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 16,002
|
In 1934, the transfer tax was about the cost of a brand new Thompson, which you could get by mail order.
The tax was many, many times the cost of a short-barreled shotgun. |
October 14, 2008, 07:48 PM | #13 |
Member In Memoriam
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
|
Actually, the Attorney General, one Homer S. Cummings, and the FDR administration proposed a sliding transfer tax that was intended to be prohibitory. IIRC, the transfer tax was $5000 on a machinegun, $2000 on a handgun, $1000 on a rifle and $500 on a shotgun. In addition, there would be a tax of $50 on each round of handgun ammo, $20 on each round of rifle ammo, $5 on each shotshell, and $.50 on each round of .22 ammo. Multiply by around $40 for today's dollar values.
All guns had to be registered and no inheritance would be allowed. But NOTE, as Sen. Obama emphasizes, no one would TAKE AWAY any guns. Until you die, then into the furnace went your guns. When Congress got done in 1934, the bill was watered down to what is essentially the NFA as it exists today as part of GCA '68. Also note well that while his attorney general was pushing what would effectively be a ban on guns, FDR was claiming to be a "hunter and sportsman" even having himself decked out in a shooting jacket and carried to the firing line of a military rifle range where he held a Model 1903 like he had never seen one before, which he probably hadn't. Sound familiar? Jim |
October 28, 2008, 08:49 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2005
Location: Mississippi/Texas
Posts: 2,505
|
There should be no tax at all. Oh and FDR:barf: The trifecta of the downfall of the U.S.Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ.:barf:
__________________
"Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress, but I repeat myself." Mark Twain |
November 2, 2008, 08:38 AM | #15 |
Member
Join Date: July 21, 2005
Location: Republik of the Amerikas
Posts: 32
|
Crosshair, are you serious ? Heller..."other changes" the 86' ban be turned over EVER ? The only other changes will be the changes in the Supreme Court and the changes to our lives as we currently know it. OhMamma will be targeting our CCW's along with all of his democratic friends in both the house and senate.
You REALLY think that the 86' act stands ANY chance of disappearing ? Possibly, no need for the 86' ban if ALL guns are banned. |
November 2, 2008, 04:19 PM | #16 | |
Junior member
Join Date: January 23, 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 1,398
|
Quote:
|
|
November 2, 2008, 04:34 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 17, 2007
Posts: 249
|
I know several people, myself included, that fully expect the "tax stamp" prices to increase substantially, so if you can afford to purchase and process your applications sooner, rather than later, you'll probably be happier. Reality, regardless of who occupies the oval office, we will never see the tax disappear.
|
November 3, 2008, 10:55 PM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,333
|
Quote:
Can women vote? Are Jim Crow laws still on the books. (OK, so the war on drugs is the last Jim Crow law still in effect.) Did we put men on the moon? Just because something is unlikely or difficult does not mean that one should not try. The US is entering a turbulent time. None of us can predict the future. Gun owners are much better organized now than we were in 1994. It is true that these times could make things go hard in either direction. Would Obama be damaging to our country. Chances are most defiantly. However, many Dems remember 1994 and the AWB. Even Bill Clinton said that the AWB lost 20 seats in the house. So the Dems rubber stamping another AWB is not a 100% sure thing. If Obama plays his cards right, he will loose congress in 2010, depending on what legislation is proposed/passed and how the economy goes. If you have already given up, then you might as well take a cutting torch to your guns now and quit wasting everyone's time whining about it. There are those of us, that will continue to work toward a difficult, but not impossible goal. Working to prevent encroachment on our remaining rights. There are many things that need to be done before taking on the 86 ban. Much lower mountains need to be climbed first. Only time will tell who is right.
__________________
I don't carry a gun to go looking for trouble, I carry a gun in case trouble finds me. |
|
November 7, 2008, 01:38 AM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 21, 2008
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 180
|
Personally, I think Obama IS going to screw with another AWB, because of that, I went online and purchased 3 new assault rifles just minutes after Obama gave his speech. It was the best $4000 I've spent in a long time.
The next morning I signed up for a 5 year NRA membership. I have faith that the gunowners in america will stand up and fight for our 2nd Amendment rights. I have faith that the NRA and other pro-gun organizations will lobby and put up a strong fight, as well. Alas, I also feel that there are enough brainless zombies out there, who are so disconnected with our world, who willingly hand over their freedoms (and ours in turn) and are being led like sheep by the great shepherd named Obama. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. |
November 7, 2008, 04:35 AM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 12, 2006
Posts: 1,512
|
[QUOTE]it only take a stroke of a pen to make it worth 0 to anyone but you/QUOTE]
What never heard of the black market. |
November 7, 2008, 07:19 PM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 21, 2008
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 180
|
Ever hear of "Club Fed"? Dealing NFA in the black market is 1st Class ticket to the hooskow.
|
November 7, 2008, 10:03 PM | #22 | ||
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,833
|
Proper terminology, Gentlemen....
Especially here in the NFA forum!
Quote:
Assault rifles (using the correct definition) are machine guns under US law (because they are select fire). And finding any single civilian transferable machinegun for $4000 is a tall order these days. The semi auto military style rifles demonized by the antis and banned/restricted by the 94 AWB are called assault weapons in the laws pertaining to them. The 94 Assault Weapons Ban did not ban or restrict a single assault rifle, it only applied to semi auto firearms. Quote:
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
||
November 7, 2008, 10:09 PM | #23 | |
Junior member
Join Date: August 16, 2008
Posts: 919
|
Quote:
the dollar itself is dropping in value still the government has confiscated peoples precious metals and has made statements to the effect that the possibility of doing it again is still on the table in this day and age... a gun is just as worthy of an investment as anything else.... and if you really think an outlawed gun would be worthless, you obviously dont understand the finer intricacies of supply and demand molon labe anyone? |
|
November 7, 2008, 11:57 PM | #24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,333
|
Quote:
Banning guns is the quickest way to start having shipping containers full of AKs smuggled into the US.
__________________
I don't carry a gun to go looking for trouble, I carry a gun in case trouble finds me. |
|
November 8, 2008, 08:41 PM | #25 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 21, 2008
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 180
|
Quote:
I purchased another AR15 M4 carbine, an AR15 M4 carbine parts kit, FN FS2000, and an AK. |
|
|
|