AW's as NFA's?

1211 Views 6 Replies 6 Participants Last post by gunner69, Dec 2, 2008

DSM

Discussion Starter · Nov 27, 2008

Now this is just discussion material, thrown into the circle for discussion's sake only, but had a conversation about shooting and what not today. That topic nowadays usually rolls around to the political landscape and the possible future and what may happen. My buddy made an interesting observation, he commented, more or less, if you ban something nobody wins, why not turn some profit? Make the so-called assault weapon an NFA item and subject to that tax. He said he was surprised no one had made that move already. This was after I had explained the process I was going through for my two suppressors and the $400 I had graciously donated to the Treasury Dept coffers for essentailly two little mufflers.

Politically, you would win either way. You can say you were 'tough on those gun toting psycho's' to appease the PC crowd but the pro-gun crowd who knows better says 'I can still get my (insert firearm here)'. To make both crowds happy you say you're taking the money and rolling it straight into a law enforcement grant program or some shiite.

Remember, this is just discussion, this not my own personal opinion just something I thought was an interesting opinion. So please keep the lead from flying my way! :ninja:

Save

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

Bravo

· #2 · Nov 27, 2008

Except for the little problems......

The SCOTUS has already decided on the tax subject - Rights can not be taxed. Doesn't matter if it's a "voters tax" or a "Second Amendment tax", it's illegal.

And the SCOTUS has already decided on the fact that the Second Amendment is an individual Right.

Best of luck getting around that one. It'd be easier to say that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to certain firearms - although that would also fly in the face of another SCOTUS decision.

Save

aziator

· #3 · Nov 28, 2008

Yeah, I don't see it happening. If anything people with NFA items should feel pretty secure about their toys as most people don't realize it is legal to own those items. I think the first things we are going to see are magazine capacity restrictions followed closely by huge taxes on ammo. I think those are the only things that have a chance of passing, at least for now. They have to slowly make the changes.

Save

DSM

Discussion Starter · #4 · Nov 28, 2008

Bravo- good points on taxing rights. SCOTUS left a back door to regulate firearms however with Heller. It's a right, yes, but when you get involved with the phrasing and terminology an "assault weapon" could be looped into being a "machinegun". The "readily adaptable to sporting purposes" is a standard that has held on since well before the 1968 firearms laws. MG's have been heavily regulated since 1934, and given the 1986 MG laws are very, very shady to say the least, I believe no Representative or Senator would dare touch repealing or altering those laws in light of Heller.

Magazine restrictions I could definitely see coming back again and another thing Uncle Sugar could make money hand over fist on. Imagine a $5 tax on anything over ten rounds. Enough to turn a profit but not so much that folks would cringe and cry party foul. For the folks about to take office on the ticket of "Ask what your country can do for you" it's free money to keep their welfare voters satiated and happy.

Save

tk

· #5 · Dec 2, 2008

Yes, but Heller does away with the "sporting purpose" nonsense.

The court found:

-- The 2nd Amendment protects an individual ownership of arms
-- The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow participation in a "citizens' militia" that defends the nation, but not not necessarily the government
-- There is an inherent right to self defense, in other words, the right to actually use arms for defense of hearth and home.

I don't think taxation is out, however. If the tax fees associated with current NFA weapons stands, they can certainly add more weapons to the NFA list.

But I think the wording of Heller will make it difficult to do that with "assault weapons." First of all, the term is so broad and non-specific that it could simply be translated as "modern weapons." And Heller makes it clear that modern weapons suitable for use in the militia would be protected. Even if they attack "assault rifles," they have a huge problem. First, Heller identifies protected weapons as those being "in common use." There are literally millions of ARs, AKs and other EBRs in private hands in the US, so it's hard to see how that class of weapons could fail the "common use" standard. OTOH, bazooks, RPGs, claymores and, perhaps, .50-caliber rifles are probably not "in common use" and are vulnerable.

That doesn't mean that Biden & Co. won't try to ban or tax "assault weapons," it just means that after a very long and expensive legal battle, he is likely to get rapped on the hand by the Supreme Court.

Could be a rocky couple of years.

tk

See less See more

Save

Charlie

· #6 · Dec 2, 2008

tk said:
That doesn't mean that Biden & Co. won't try to ban or tax "assault weapons," it just means that after a very long and expensive legal battle, he is likely to get rapped on the hand by the Supreme Court.

Could be a rocky couple of years.

tk

Probably preaching to the choir here -- that is why we need to get every one we know to join the NRA. The NRA is our best defense.

Save

gunner69

· #7 · Dec 2, 2008

As an NFA owner, and a Life Member of the NRA I agree the NRA has did a good job of defending our rights. Their "throwing us under the train (NFA Rights) still gauls hell out of me. They have "clot" others just ask for donations. Our next four years may not be our only worries, if Obama does well. :doh:

Save

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.

Top Contributors this Month