- Messages
- 1,458
- Reactions
- 3,574
I see this subject come up periodically and thought that I would write a short dissertation on the subject. First let me state that the following is my opinion only and should not be considered legal advice.
In 1934 The Federal firearms Act came into being. Most of America was still agrarian and much of the country still didn't have electricity. The big cities, in particular Chicago, New York and other east coast cities were plagued with a new kind of criminal. He was well organized, violent and better funded than the police. He was also better armed. The police were under the control of crooked administrations, used physical duress at leisure and were woefully underpaid. In an effort to reduce the violence the FFL was introduced as part of a comprehensive effort to get submachine guns and fully automatic rifles out of the hands of criminals. It was also used to make handgun ownership more restrictive. But government being government saw an opportunity to tax certain guns out of existence. So the $200 tax stamp was the method chosen. Keep in mind that $200 in 1934 would be the equivalent of approximately $3,900 in todays currency. It's important to remember that most law abiding citizens have to save their money in order to buy a firearm. Crooks on the other hand, don't. Crooks use the proceeds from illegal activities to purchase firearms, so the cost of them is not important. The $200 stamp was seen as little more than a small hurdle to overcome, by the bad guys. It was a tax and nothing more. The $200 stamp brings with it nothing in the way of protection to the owner of the taxed device or weapon. It was and is simply form over substance. If you have a device or firearm that is subject to this "transfer" tax, you are still subject to rules, regulations and laws concerning their ownership and use. What you do have going for you is the Federal Ex Post Facto Law. It is simply a law that says, in essence, no one can create a law that is retroactive. If gun ownership was legal and you owned a gun, then no law can be passed making the ownership of a gun you own, illegal. Lots of legislators have tried and failed. Now they can regulate the heck out of gun ownership, but they can't confiscate it. Our founding fathers are the ones to thank for having the common sense to look ahead and see that there would be a time when tyrants would try to disarm the citizenry. It can't be done legally. You can't legally hunt with a sub-machine gun, but you can hunt with a semi-automatic.
Another consideration is that firearms have gone up in price quite dramatically. It's getting to the point that only wealthy folks can afford high quality firearms. Interestingly, it's the poor amongst us that are most often the victims of criminals that are generally using lower quality firearms and it's those same lower quality firearms that the victims use to protect themselves. You don't see a lot go Glocks, Sigs, HK's, etc. being used by gang-bangers unless they are stolen. Most firearm regulation is aimed at lower quality firearms if not directly, at least tacitly.
In closing, I suggest to you that we will have the 2nd Amendment around for the foreseeable future and that will protect us from those that wish to disarm us. Tax stamps are just revenue generators and a "wink" from gov't to wealthier Americans. Just my thoughts on the matter. I still say "Death To Tyrants and to all those that would bring harm to this great nation! E Pluribus Unum.
In 1934 The Federal firearms Act came into being. Most of America was still agrarian and much of the country still didn't have electricity. The big cities, in particular Chicago, New York and other east coast cities were plagued with a new kind of criminal. He was well organized, violent and better funded than the police. He was also better armed. The police were under the control of crooked administrations, used physical duress at leisure and were woefully underpaid. In an effort to reduce the violence the FFL was introduced as part of a comprehensive effort to get submachine guns and fully automatic rifles out of the hands of criminals. It was also used to make handgun ownership more restrictive. But government being government saw an opportunity to tax certain guns out of existence. So the $200 tax stamp was the method chosen. Keep in mind that $200 in 1934 would be the equivalent of approximately $3,900 in todays currency. It's important to remember that most law abiding citizens have to save their money in order to buy a firearm. Crooks on the other hand, don't. Crooks use the proceeds from illegal activities to purchase firearms, so the cost of them is not important. The $200 stamp was seen as little more than a small hurdle to overcome, by the bad guys. It was a tax and nothing more. The $200 stamp brings with it nothing in the way of protection to the owner of the taxed device or weapon. It was and is simply form over substance. If you have a device or firearm that is subject to this "transfer" tax, you are still subject to rules, regulations and laws concerning their ownership and use. What you do have going for you is the Federal Ex Post Facto Law. It is simply a law that says, in essence, no one can create a law that is retroactive. If gun ownership was legal and you owned a gun, then no law can be passed making the ownership of a gun you own, illegal. Lots of legislators have tried and failed. Now they can regulate the heck out of gun ownership, but they can't confiscate it. Our founding fathers are the ones to thank for having the common sense to look ahead and see that there would be a time when tyrants would try to disarm the citizenry. It can't be done legally. You can't legally hunt with a sub-machine gun, but you can hunt with a semi-automatic.
Another consideration is that firearms have gone up in price quite dramatically. It's getting to the point that only wealthy folks can afford high quality firearms. Interestingly, it's the poor amongst us that are most often the victims of criminals that are generally using lower quality firearms and it's those same lower quality firearms that the victims use to protect themselves. You don't see a lot go Glocks, Sigs, HK's, etc. being used by gang-bangers unless they are stolen. Most firearm regulation is aimed at lower quality firearms if not directly, at least tacitly.
In closing, I suggest to you that we will have the 2nd Amendment around for the foreseeable future and that will protect us from those that wish to disarm us. Tax stamps are just revenue generators and a "wink" from gov't to wealthier Americans. Just my thoughts on the matter. I still say "Death To Tyrants and to all those that would bring harm to this great nation! E Pluribus Unum.
