National BILL WOULD UP NFA TAX 50% AS FEDS STUDY TURNING PISTOLS TO SBRS

[The Heretic]

Bill Would up NFA Tax 50% as Feds Study Turning Pistols to SBRs :: Guns.com

The very day that the Biden-Harris Administration moved to establish a rule reclassifying millions of braced pistols under the NFA, a Democrat lawmaker introduced a bill to bump their costs.

www.guns.com

Read More

 

[CountryGent]

After that, the rate would increase in line annually with the federal cost-of-living adjustment.

Oh, FFS.

 

[mhayd93]

Yeah, it is time for the Supreme Court to stop dancing around 2nd Amendment cases and make a stand! Obviously there would be no guarantees that they rule favorably; however, is there any other aspect of the Bill of Rights that has been so casually shredded to pieces bit by bit?

What other Amendment has its own series of unconstitutional federal organizations that get to arbitrarily alter/limit it?

 

[Member 34319]

It was only a matter of time. I kind of knew this was coming within my lifetime, and planned accordingly. They had not increased the amount in decades. The amount now is only a minor hindrance to purchasing these items. Items they made extremely hard to obtain when they originally passed the bill. They must have finally looked at the numbers and realized that multiple millions of suppressors and other NFA items have been obtained in only the last 5 years compared to the last 60.

 

[User 1234]

Viewed in isolation this isn't severe. Viewed through the realistic lens of yet another irrational attack on gun owners it is part of the death by a thousand cuts strategy. Eventually raise the tax to $10,000 and earmark the funds for Democrat campaigns.

 

[Member 34319]

Inflation alone, the $200 would now be 2-4 thousand dollars.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Gun owners are again... the worst enemies for 2A, again. "It doesnt effect what I got, so eff you plebians". "No one needs a silencer". " no one needs a short barreled firearm". "No one needs automatic". "No one needs semiautos". "No one needs a 2nd grip on a pistol".
"No one needs a bump stock"
"No one needs a stock/brace on a pistol"
"No one needs a pistol that big(AR types)"

"No one needs a rifle that small (SBRs)"

And so on....

Miller vs US. 2A "protects weapons suitable for militia uses, including military weapons"

Heller vs DC. Handguns being "in common use", are protected by 2A, 2A is individual right, not collective. Self defense is a lawful reason for gun carriage outside home

Printz vs US. Federal gov cannot compel nor directly command States or State Officials to enforce Federal Laws within States.

Montana vs US 9th District(2008ish), not sure what exact case name is.
Federal govt have sole authority to regulate firearms commerce and making/manufacturing within States, because intrastate firearms comnerce will impact interstate commerce.

 

[Member 34319]

Gun owners are again... the worst enemies for 2A, again. "It doesnt effect what I got, so eff you plebians". "No one needs a silencer". " no one needs a short barreled firearm". "No one needs automatic". "No one needs semiautos". "No one needs a 2nd grip on a pistol".
"No one needs a bump stock"
"No one needs a stock/brace on a pistol"
"No one needs a pistol that big(AR types)"

"No one needs a rifle that small (SBRs)"

And so on....

Miller vs US. 2A "protects weapobs suitable for militia uses, including military weapons"

Heller vs DC. Handguns being "in common use", are protected by 2A, 2A is individual right, not collective. Self defense is a lawful reason for gun carriage outside home

Printz vs US. Federal gov cannot compel nor directly command States or State Officials to enforce Federal Laws within States.

Montana vs US 9th District(2008ish), not sure what exact case name is.
Federal govt have sole authority to regulate firearms commerce and making/manufacturing within States, because intrastate firearms comnerce will impact interstate commerce.

While I understand this and to some extent agree. I also understand our government including the constitution is a living government. Change can be made to it. Changes are made to other constitutional rights all the time yet completely ignored by the gun community as it doesn't pertain to them, exactly as you stated here.

Changing the price of the tax changes only that, the price. You can still these items, you will just have to pay more.

From their perspective, they are only updating the living governing policy. Which from a governing standpoint is perfectly normal.

Yes that is unfavorable, but that's how it works unfortunately.

We don't get mad when government updates a living governing policy to work with new tech like the internet and the first amendment. Or when other tech starts to encroach in the 5th amendment.

I know this is unfavorable to say, but I like to at least try to look at it from all sides.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Eh. All the more reason to revert to Absolute Rights and liberties, and repeal the whole of NFA, GCA, FOPA Hughes Amendment... and to force States to recognize Absolute Rights.

Never gonna happen with the current group we have in there, unfortunately.

$300 tax proposed, and proposed to increase according to cost of living adjustments?

What's the Boston Tea Party threshhold nowadays for more Americans to unite against tax increases? sure seems like these days half the nation doesn't care, the other half wants to keep increasing taxes.


Edit. You bet someone's butt that were they to propose increasing the Federal Income Taxes 50% across the board ; millions of Americans would take to the streets and storm the Capitol on that basis.. but they're proposing tax increases on certain taxpayer groups, and on corporations.. it hasn't happened.

 

[CountryGent]

NFA34 needs to go away. The problem is neither party in our present system will do so. On the contrary, the scope of said law has expanded under both Democrat and Republican administrations.

 

[User 1234]

The SBR category was added to the NFA to prevent people from circumventing the NFA inclusion of handguns by cutting their barrels shorter. Then when the handguns were removed from the bill the drafters decided to retain the SBR category anyway.

Even before modern technology gun laws were extremely arbitrary and based on ill -informed emotions.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

NFA fee goes up 50%? In that case Im 100% certain I wont be filing to SBR regardless of what new laws come banning pistols. Id do ONE SBR filing if it was FREE. But my other pistols are staying pistols.

I just dont think they have legal ground to automatically force a fee on previously, legally obtained (and owned) private property without offering some type of grandfathering or waived stamp fee as they did with "street sweepers". Beyond that, legally just being in possession before paperwork is filed opens it up regular citizens to illegal possession as well as constructive intent.. so while pending.. even IF people filed paperwork.. in theory they have an illegal firearm while waiting on stamp approval.
Lots of funky legal stuff has to go on and be disclosed for this entire thing to go down.

I think they'll raise the stamp fees.. but I doubt they are going to force SBR status on pistols for the time being. Millions of owners filing lawsuits.. nah.. its not something I think they can swing. Brace banning and redefinition is a more likely goal.

 

[Melman]

Yeah, it is time for the Supreme Court to stop dancing around 2nd Amendment cases and make a stand! Obviously there would be no guarantees that they rule favorably; however, is there any other aspect of the Bill of Rights that has been so casually shredded to pieces bit by bit?

What other Amendment has its own series of unconstitutional federal organizations that get to arbitrarily alter/limit it?

Next to the second amendment the Bill of Right that they are destroying is the 4th amendment in order to enforce second amendment compliance

 

[Melman]

NFA34 needs to go away. The problem is neither party in our present system will do so. On the contrary, the scope of said law has expanded under both Democrat and Republican administrations.

If trump was so pro second amendment as many on here claim why didn't he push for this and use reconciliation since it's a financial/ tax bill???

 

[mhayd93]

While I understand this and to some extent agree. I also understand our government including the constitution is a living government. Change can be made to it. Changes are made to other constitutional rights all the time yet completely ignored by the gun community as it doesn't pertain to them, exactly as you stated here.

Changing the price of the tax changes only that, the price. You can still these items, you will just have to pay more.

From their perspective, they are only updating the living governing policy. Which from a governing standpoint is perfectly normal.

Yes that is unfavorable, but that's how it works unfortunately.

We don't get mad when government updates a living governing policy to work with new tech like the internet and the first amendment. Or when other tech starts to encroach in the 5th amendment.

I know this is unfavorable to say, but I like to at least try to look at it from all sides.

This is not entirely true, and is an argument that is frequently used to strip us of our rights! There are aspects of the Constitution that are set in stone, the Bill of Rights being one of them! As much as the Bill of Rights is an affirmation of certain personal liberties, it is also a set of restrictions on the Federal government.

A new Amendment would be the only way to "properly" add restrictions to the Bill of Rights; however, such an action in and of itself would be a restriction by the Federal government (which of course the Bill of Rights says they cannot do!) The Constitution is "living" only to the extent that it does not become self-defeating; otherwise it is no longer a Constitution or binding document!

That being said, I absolutely agree with you that government has trampled over numerous rights that many people have turned a blind-eye to. However, those restrictions are simply the government ignoring the Constitution, not being permitted by it!

 

[Member 34319]

Next to the second amendment the Bill of Right that they are destroying is the 4th amendment in order to enforce second amendment compliance

Much of the bill of rights is being fundamentally changed. Case law will show that much of the basis of the bill of rights is still law however.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Heller vs DC

That one I think would be the defining citations against adding a whole class of firearms to the NFA categories... never mind that Suppressors/Silencers are basically in "common use" overall as they're among the cheapest ways to get into NFA items, other than the SBR/SBS routes.

Because AR pistols are in common use by being functionally and legally the same as a handgun, it falls then that "common use" applies wholly to AR pistols under Heller, even if applying the sheer number of braces sold or firearms sold with braces.

On the flip side... since Miller vs US says that 2A protects only the arms that are suitable for militia use, meaning military weapons, then the common use terms would not be applicable to NFA items, because the NFA covers arms that are right now, suitable for military and militia use, especially the fully auto arms, silencers, and short barreled rifles.. AOWs would also be covered, as would Destructive Devices.

In the same style of mental gymnastics employed by the ATF and the SCOTUS likely...

NFA is all good because it regulates arms that are particularly useful for the military, and the 2A protects the NFA classes because 2A covers arms particularly useful for militia/military weapons

 

[arakboss]

what happened to free stamps

 

[Stomper]

Eh. All the more reason to revert to Absolute Rights and liberties, and repeal the whole of NFA, GCA, FOPA Hughes Amendment... and to force States to recognize Absolute Rights.

Never gonna happen with the current group we have in there, unfortunately.

$300 tax proposed, and proposed to increase according to cost of living adjustments?

What's the Boston Tea Party threshhold nowadays for more Americans to unite against tax increases? sure seems like these days half the nation doesn't care, the other half wants to keep increasing taxes.


Edit. You bet someone's butt that were they to propose increasing the Federal Income Taxes 50% across the board ; millions of Americans would take to the streets and storm the Capitol on that basis.. but they're proposing tax increases on certain taxpayer groups, and on corporations.. it hasn't happened.

Nope.... over 50% of working citizens pay zero income tax, and in fact most of those get an "earned income credit" and actually get back more than the total they had withheld over the fiscal tax-year.


Tyranny brought in with bread and circuses, bought and paid for with YOUR (and my) money we paid in taxes.

 

[nammac]

what happened to free stamps

As has been stated already, $200 in 1934 is equal to $3,953.39 today. So bumping from $200 to $300, is the next best thing to free.

Just think, then their registries will be overflowing. And being the wise government that it is, they'll realize if your on the hook for a NFA item, perhaps you have other goodies of interest...

#DONOTCOMPLY