Silver Supporter
- Messages
- 2,594
- Reactions
- 9,935
Or.... 40 million semi autos are going to be "lost in tragic boating accidents"...... Assuming 40 million semi autos are going to be registered...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Or.... 40 million semi autos are going to be "lost in tragic boating accidents"...... Assuming 40 million semi autos are going to be registered...
Certainly there is that option but if I want my guns I will pay the thieving tax so they will leave me alone. Unless a man built his own AR then odds are they know you have it. The paper trail is there as evidence if you bought new or after the forced transfer registration.Or.... 40 million semi autos are going to be "lost in tragic boating accidents"...
Here is the text of the Hughes amendment. No mention of it being any kind of a tax. The first line looks like a ban to me--Don't forget, the only way they even got the Hughes act passed was to make it a TAX instead of an outright ban,
Friend we are on the same side so forgive if I don't speak and post the way you want. I post opinion from my understanding and really don't ever argue points of perfection. I do think if you look at registering millions of guns with the NFA and what a nightmare and folly it is then you may agree they won't do it. Its a fear tactic to say they will imho.
I agree. Additionally the brace vendors have been asking for written guidance. Be careful what you ask for.The WH told them to come up with something, preferably something to get some control over braces, and they did. I think the checklist is flawed, but less flawed (with regards to ambiguity and potential legal issues for citizens) than the previous practice of flip flopping policy letters and field agent opinions on what is legal and what isn't with regards to pistol braces.
Having lived a long life and watching our courts, I am no faith iYour post is not accurate.
"The government's duty to pay just compensation applies to personal property as well as real property, Roberts said. "The government has a categorical duty to pay just compensation when it takes your car, just as when it takes your home," Roberts wrote."
Takings clause applies to personal property, SCOTUS rules in 'major blow' to set-aside programs
The ABA Journal is read by half of the nation's 1 million lawyers every month. It covers the trends, people and finances of the legal profession from Wall Street to Main Street to Pennsylvania Avenue.www.abajournal.com
You can't get much more authoritative than the United States Supreme Court.
Opinions differ, that makes for a better world...In my opinion.I make no claim on your ability to speak or write as you see fit. You chose to reply to me, and so here we are. The distinction between a rule change by an executive branch bureaucracy and a law as passed by Congress is, to me, no trivial difference. This is not a point of perfection but in fact the basis of the entirety of my previous post and point and why I said your interpretation of it was incorrect.
The ATF making such a rule change on their own would be like the local police department suddenly deciding that driving red cars on the I-5 within 100 miles of PDX is now illegal and worthy of a massive fine and jail time. I hope that this example displays just how much an overstep of rights that I feel this would be. To be clear: I think that adding the AR to the NFA is an overstep, no matter who does it. But, the ATF acting of its own accord with no direction from Congress would be a much more tyrannical action.
I disagree that the breadth of scope of registering some XX million AR's to the NFA would be a deterrent. When has the government ever cared about such things? We literally have soldiers in the Middle East who were born after the war already began. It doesn't really matter the reason that we're there: the fact that we are still there after two decades, trillions of dollars, and thousands of lives lost - this is the measure of the government's resolve.
So if the Legislature says that they're going to add AR's to the NFA, and the Executive says they're going to enforce it, and the Judicial doesn't stop it...then I don't think the breadth of work means anything. They'll get started just the same, will probably get larger budgets too.
People can do what they feel is right. But, history has shown that registration is no protection against confiscation. Quite the opposite. They will only leave you alone so long. Registration is an even more direct paper trail. And we have seen pretty clearly that rights, rules and regulations mean little or nothing to the current administration. So, any limitation against access to records wouldn't even act as a speed bump to them.Certainly there is that option but if I want my guns I will pay the thieving tax so they will leave me alone. Unless a man built his own AR then odds are they know you have it. The paper trail is there as evidence if you bought new or after the forced transfer registration.
Only if they don't know you have it can you sleep secure once they change the law imho.
I doubt they will go to NFA registry, it will be a big cluster er ah flock
We pay taxes on our gun rights all the time, if you buy new there is a Pitman tax on all guns and ammo added along with a background check tax. Buy used and the government taxes the transfer through the dealer and still you have the BC tax.People can do what they feel is right. But, history has shown that registration is no protection against confiscation. Quite the opposite. They will only leave you alone so long. Registration is an even more direct paper trail. And we have seen pretty clearly that rights, rules and regulations mean little or nothing to the current administration. So, any limitation against access to records wouldn't even register as a speed bump.
Why are some of us ok with a tax on the Second Amendment but not the others? Would we be ok with a tax to speak, assemble or worship? Would we be ok with paying protection money to the government for the privilege of being secure in our person or property? Would we be ok with paying a bribe in order to have a speedy and fair trial? If we have to pay to exercise a right, is it really a right anymore, or is it a privilege for only those deemed wealthy, worthy, or woke enough by the fatherland? I think the answer is playing out on the nightly news.
We do. But should we be as comfortable with it as we are? At best we are only buying a little time, yet giving them the map and key. There is a reason the administration is pushing for everything to be regulated via the GCA or NFA. There is a reason that all of the options that still allowed gunowners some freedom (80%, pistol braces, etc...) are in their crosshairs. And it isn't for our safety or benefit or to reduce crime...It's hard to say they are reducing crime by making millions of new felons overnight with the stroke of a pen.We pay taxes on our gun rights all the time, if you buy new there is a Pitman tax on all guns and ammo added along with a background check tax. Buy used and the government taxes the transfer through the dealer and still you have the BC tax.
No sir I don't like taxes and at my age I have paid a lot more taxes than some folks will. Its my opinion its worth paying the thieves $200 to leave me alone. Its not right nor constitutional what they do but if folks don't want to take the time to stop the crap then we have to learn to live with it.
I bought some NFA things years ago and never once heard from them after the paperwork was done. Its a very good argument that its unconstitutional but folks don't seem to care anymore. I do
This is why smart AR and AK (and anything else where they can get the skill) people only buy bare receivers, or even 80%'s, and Roll Yer Own.Certainly there is that option but if I want my guns I will pay the thieving tax so they will leave me alone. Unless a man built his own AR then odds are they know you have it. The paper trail is there as evidence if you bought new or after the forced transfer registration.
When the time comes, they will not leave you alone.Its my opinion its worth paying the thieves $200 to leave me alone.
Its my opinion that you can never shoot those around anyone else because you will be rated out. I didn't go that direction because I don't like hiding my stuff.This is why smart AR and AK (and anything else where they can get the skill) people only buy bare receivers, or even 80%'s, and Roll Yer Own.
Should not be - sure. There shouldn't be an NFA or GCA either.Me thinks, IF they change the rules and suddenly make a firearm fall under some ATFE rule, making millions of previously lead ally owned firearms illegal, then there should be no application fee or tax stamp or whatever other name they try to attach to it. Just because some alphabet agency changes the rules, doesn't mean millions of Americans have to pony up $$$ to keep what they've already legally owned…
Again you are wise and I agree with your opinion, they will always come for more.When the time comes, they will not leave you alone.
In fact, when it comes to confiscation, who do you think they will go after first? Someone with a hunting rifle, revolver, etc., or someone with a SBR/SBS, suppressor or select fire firearm?
Wait for it...
Still waiting for them to take the full autos away. It's only been 87 years.When the time comes, they will not leave you alone.
In fact, when it comes to confiscation, who do you think they will go after first? Someone with a hunting rifle, revolver, etc., or someone with a SBR/SBS, suppressor or select fire firearm?
Wait for it...
It could be argued that 1773 happened for much less.Me thinks, IF they change the rules and suddenly make a firearm fall under some ATFE rule, making millions of previously lead ally owned firearms illegal, then there should be no application fee or tax stamp or whatever other name they try to attach to it. Just because some alphabet agency changes the rules, doesn't mean millions of Americans have to pony up $$$ to keep what they've already legally owned…
I recall someone trying to increase taxes on tea some years ago. That didn't seem to work out so well. And only escalated in said someone and their army receiving an azz whoopin' …
Enough is indeed enough. People need to stand up to tyranny and resist. Our founding fathers would have…
Range Karens are part of the reason I have developed a distaste for most "professional ranges". Nobody stays in their lane, literally. Not hiding anything, everything is legit and numbered, but when someone hovers, or is overly curious, it is not because they like your gear.Its my opinion that you can never shoot those around anyone else because you will be rated out. I didn't go that direction because I don't like hiding my stuff.
The states have started confiscating.Still waiting for them to take the full autos away. It's only been 87 years.
If it takes at least 87 years for them to come after SBS/SBR/AOW/Suppressors. I'll likely be just fine.
I am honestly surprised at how many people still think the government is actually going to just start confiscating guns and shooting up gun owners.
Marketing…
That's not entirely factual either. States have not truly started confiscating guns. They have created laws that assist in removing guns from those that may do harm. In a sense they have created "pre-crime". Guilty until proven innocent. If innocent, these people have had their property returned. That is not really confiscation. Calling it so isn't factual.The states have started confiscating.
The gov and gun control forces are playing the long game. They won't start tomorrow, probably not next year, maybe not before I die, but they will eventually. As already noted, history has shown that registration invariably and eventually leads to confiscation. Never say never.