The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old August 21, 2013, 10:37 PM   #26
Evan Thomas
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,141
The government couldn't foresee all the food we would have nowadays and nobody would need to poach.
This isn't a very sound argument: "we" have a lot of food nowadays, but it doesn't necessarily reach the people who need it. Poverty and hunger have increased in the US over the past few years. Over 15% of rural households are "food insecure" (the current euphemism for not having enough to eat). Not that they're all out there poaching, but that motivation is still there for many people.

I'd also question whether poachers worry too much about the niceties of the NFA, but that's another discussion entirely.
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry.

Last edited by Evan Thomas; August 22, 2013 at 08:55 AM.
Evan Thomas is offline  
Old August 22, 2013, 06:37 AM   #27
Senior Member
Join Date: May 19, 2008
Location: Somewhere North of the Roaring 40's...Just
Posts: 273
NZ suppressors

Just as a comparison this is the "Worlds Largest Dedicated Gunshop" based in Christchurch, in the South Island of New Zealand. They are known to be a bit over priced, and the most expensive suppressor is about US$630. As mentioned they are over the counter items. Oh and US$4300 Hydramatic M-16's
It is New Zealand's role to send out its bright young men and women to help run the rest of the world. And they go, not hating the country of their birth, but loving it. From this loving base they make their mark on the world.

Pro-1080 Poison and proud of it!!
Falcon5NZ is offline  
Old August 22, 2013, 12:34 PM   #28
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,698
Silencers -or mufflers as they were often referred to at the time- seem to have been a standing item on the anti-gun agenda of the day that was tossed in the NFA with substantially no discussion.

Here is a bit of background from the National Firearms Act hearings before the Committee On Ways And Means of the House of Representatives, April 16, 1934.

Regarding revenue, since the NFA is in part a tax act.

Attorney General Cummings: I am informed that, under existing law, there is an ad valorem 10-percent tax on pistols and revolvers and that this law produced $35,388 in the fiscal year 1933. This existing law, if the pending bill should pass, will become inoperative so far as it imposes a tax on firearms included the proposed legislation. So we shall have to take into account the fact that with the passage of this bill there will disappear most if not all of that $35,000, but it will reappear in a larger measure under the taxing provisions and the licensing provisions that we would have in this act.

Mr. Cooper: I would be glad if you could give us your estimate of the revenue to be yielded from these various items suggested by you.
Attorney General Cummings: Well it probably would approach $100,000.
Mr. Cooper: All or them together would approach, in your opinion, about $100,000 a year?
Attorney General Cummings: Yes, sir.
Bearing in mind that the original NFA bill called for a tax on transfers and a license to transport across state lines, the following interchange is revealing.

Mr. McClintic: 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: Afraid it would conflict with State laws?
Attorney General Cummings: I am afraid it would be unconstitutional.
Finally, a summary of the theory behind the NFA.

Attorney General Cummings: I think that it does two crucial things. It deals with the tracing of these weapons if traded or transferred after this act goes into effect; it deals with the requirement of licensing if a person is to take any weapon across State lines. And I am assuming in all this, of course, that the criminal elements are not going to obtain permits and they are not going to obtain licenses, and they are not going to be able to bring themselves within those protective requirements. Therefore, when we capture one of those people, we have simply a plain question to propound to him - where is your license; where is your permit? If he cannot show it, we have got him and his weapons and we do not have to go through an elaborate trial, with all kinds of complicated questions arising. That is the theory of the bill.
gc70 is offline  

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 07:18 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2017 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.05557 seconds with 7 queries