I now want to see this built lol….I believe I don't have the prerequisite skills (thank god, otherwise I'd have all sorts of weird bubblegum hanging around lol)
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
National Form 1 or Not to Form 1?
- Thread Starter arakboss
- Start date
- Messages
- 5,466
- Reactions
- 13,722
What happens when the disqualifying criminal convictions are expanded to include a speeding ticket or taking an undersized fish?
The problem with sbr's is you "could" be on the short list when time comes to take/restrict them... then you will have to choose to comply, kill or be killed.
We all know the AFT could not care less about you/me or my/your family... just that we obey...
We all know the AFT could not care less about you/me or my/your family... just that we obey...
The scum will probably try to do that... anything to take away a person's rights...
Member 53328
- Messages
- 9,059
- Reactions
- 19,929
Well that's a different story. But rapists, pedophiles, domestic violence and murders shouldn't have guns. We can cross that bridge when we get there. I love how we go high and to the right immediately. "If you get a traffic ticket you can't own guns….." lol.
Maybe. People that file and purchase a tax stamp are likely the MOST law abiding gun owners out there. Voluntary registration and compliance. With photos and prints and everything. Not exactly their biggest threat.
- Messages
- 4,917
- Reactions
- 12,967
I don't have a dog in this fight, or much of an opinion in this discussion, since the type of guns discussed aren't really my cup of tea, but I did have a relevant comment about the $200 transfer tax, just food for thought.
I read somewhere a while back, don't remember where, that certain ATF type people do not like the $200 transfer tax at all. They consider it a giveaway, a bargain that flies in the face of the intent of the 1934 NFA. The problem is inflation, and the fact that the NFA made no allowances for increasing the tax to keep up with inflation.
In 1934, $200 was a LOT of money. Adjusted for inflation, it's the equivalent of over $4,000 now. The intent was to make NFA items prohibitively expensive, so that only the wealthy could have them. Over the decades, inflation nibbled the tax down to where now most any average person can afford it pretty easily. Some people are not happy about that at all. They think it's too cheap and should be a lot more.
As to background checks, my own views have moderated a bit over the years. In principle, I'm opposed to them being required. In practice though, I don't want bad people to have guns any more than anyone else. My gripe with the way they were implemented here is that there was room for compromise. They could have included exceptions for C&R FFLs, CMP sales, CHL holders, and others who've already been thoroughly vetted. The fact that they didn't shows that it was really just a "gotcha" move, to screw over the other side as much as they could, rather than any sort of sincere attempt at something positive.
More food for thought, just because it seems slightly germane to the discussion here:
I read somewhere a while back, don't remember where, that certain ATF type people do not like the $200 transfer tax at all. They consider it a giveaway, a bargain that flies in the face of the intent of the 1934 NFA. The problem is inflation, and the fact that the NFA made no allowances for increasing the tax to keep up with inflation.
In 1934, $200 was a LOT of money. Adjusted for inflation, it's the equivalent of over $4,000 now. The intent was to make NFA items prohibitively expensive, so that only the wealthy could have them. Over the decades, inflation nibbled the tax down to where now most any average person can afford it pretty easily. Some people are not happy about that at all. They think it's too cheap and should be a lot more.
As to background checks, my own views have moderated a bit over the years. In principle, I'm opposed to them being required. In practice though, I don't want bad people to have guns any more than anyone else. My gripe with the way they were implemented here is that there was room for compromise. They could have included exceptions for C&R FFLs, CMP sales, CHL holders, and others who've already been thoroughly vetted. The fact that they didn't shows that it was really just a "gotcha" move, to screw over the other side as much as they could, rather than any sort of sincere attempt at something positive.
More food for thought, just because it seems slightly germane to the discussion here:
- Messages
- 24,546
- Reactions
- 37,227
- Thread Starter
- #48
There was a move last year to try and raise it.I don't have a dog in this fight, or much of an opinion in this discussion, since the type of guns discussed aren't really my cup of tea, but I did have a relevant comment about the $200 transfer tax, just food for thought.
I read somewhere a while back, don't remember where, that certain ATF type people do not like the $200 transfer tax at all. They consider it a giveaway, a bargain that flies in the face of the intent of the 1934 NFA. The problem is inflation, and the fact that the NFA made no allowances for increasing the tax to keep up with inflation.
In 1934, $200 was a LOT of money. Adjusted for inflation, it's the equivalent of over $4,000 now. The intent was to make NFA items prohibitively expensive, so that only the wealthy could have them. Over the decades, inflation nibbled the tax down to where now most any average person can afford it pretty easily. Some people are not happy about that at all. They think it's too cheap and should be a lot more.
As to background checks, my own views have moderated a bit over the years. In principle, I'm opposed to them being required. In practice though, I don't want bad people to have guns any more than anyone else. My gripe with the way they were implemented here is that there was room for compromise. They could have included exceptions for C&R FFLs, CMP sales, CHL holders, and others who've already been thoroughly vetted. The fact that they didn't shows that it was really just a "gotcha" move, to screw over the other side as much as they could, rather than any sort of sincere attempt at something positive.
More food for thought, just because it seems slightly germane to the discussion here:
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
- Messages
- 24,546
- Reactions
- 37,227
- Thread Starter
- #49
When the Feds see the lack of interest from braced pistol owners to purchase a tax stamp, the next move will likely be to apply a score card system to non-braced pistols. I am sure they have their top violence prevention experts working on that now.
Member 53328
- Messages
- 9,059
- Reactions
- 19,929
I think they are more concerned with passing bills and handing out "clean" crack pipes.
- Messages
- 24,546
- Reactions
- 37,227
- Thread Starter
- #51
Luckily for the BATF, other agencies are handling the crack pipe give-a-away. I think they will have plenty of time to drum up more Form 1, Form 4, etc business.
I am certain there was little support from the BATF for the HPA as that would have put a serious damper on their tax stamp sales numbers.
Member 53328
- Messages
- 9,059
- Reactions
- 19,929
Well I'll gladly continue as a "tax stamp customer." All this talk has me thinking about the next form 1 I'll submit.
- Messages
- 5,466
- Reactions
- 13,722
Last e-file form 1 on the new system was less than two weeks start to finish.
- Messages
- 24,546
- Reactions
- 37,227
- Thread Starter
- #54
Enjoy the leather:
Member 53328
- Messages
- 9,059
- Reactions
- 19,929
My last one was 17 business days. Much better than my form 4. Although my form 4 was only 6 months. Better then the lottery.
Member 53328
- Messages
- 9,059
- Reactions
- 19,929
Haha. I wish I was as much of a rebel as you are…. I'll strive to do better. Thanks for fighting the good fight.
- Messages
- 5,466
- Reactions
- 13,722
You got me good Farva!
I would never sell a gun without transferring it solely because if they do anything with it I want it known it wasn't mine at the time. =|
Member 53328
- Messages
- 9,059
- Reactions
- 19,929
Yup. In todays world I want the least amount of liability and attachment to another's actions as possible. There is no longer self responsibility/consequence and for that I want to distance myself from those I have no knowledge of.
I'm personally a fan of filling out a 4473 for purchases. Makes me 100% sure I'm not buying a hot item
Similar threads
