Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

Would you pay the extra $10 per FFL sale to repeal the NFA

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 80.0%
  • No

    Votes: 2 20.0%
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
NRA Instructor
Joined
·
3,391 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Since the NFA repeal petition has surpassed the minimum for a response from the White House would you be willing to pay an extra $10 per firearm sold through an FFL in order to achieve this goal? this would amount to about $200,000,000 per year to the federal coffers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,543 Posts
What goal? Repealing the NFA? Why would we need to pay the government to do that?
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,519 Posts
yes, and I don't give a $%&( about the "fairness" of it or the "authority" of the government to collect a $10 tax.

Repeal the NFA and let all that stuff be sold like normal guns are sold through FFL dealers, with no special restrictions on what you do with them after you buy them (legal private sales to in-state individuals, no paperwork required, OK to transport interstate as long as no state laws are broken)... yeah, I can go for that.

It's a vast improvement over the stupid set of laws we have now.
 

·
NRA Instructor
Joined
·
3,391 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
What goal? Repealing the NFA? Why would we need to pay the government to do that?
Right now the NFA is a revenue stream to the ATF. Not quite the $200m but still it's there. With the promised tax cuts, needing to get the wall built and other good things in the pipe yet to be seen the debt of the country needs additional help. Aside of this offset Trump likes to make deals. So I was playing lets make a deal with this thought.
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,519 Posts
The "White House Petition" is just a fart in the wind. It means nothing. NOTHING. It's like starting a Facebook page dedicated to abolishing the ATF and getting 10,000 gun lovers to "like" it.

Here's a better proposal for a revenue-neutral reform of the NFA, which would not require any layoffs or shrinking the size of ATF's budget or closing any of the buildings they use. No layoffs for these federal employees:

-- Announce that all silencers, SBR, and SBS will have only one regulation under the NFA, and that is that any person buying or selling such a weapon in a private party transaction must make a receipt / bill of sale and send it to ATF within 10 days of the transfer of the weapon. That would be "registration" without any delay or hardship or loss of liberty to the parties. The registration form would be accompanied by a "recording fee" of $30 to cover the administrative costs.

(Keep in mind that without the NFA restrictions on transfers, the Forms, the Fingerprints, and without the $200 tax, a lot more of these kinds of NFA devices will be registered, and having hundreds of thousands of people pay $30 per item will generate more revenue than having ten thousand people pay $200.)

-- Take silencers, SBR's and SBS's out of any other NFA regulation or restriction, except the above registration and $30 tax.
Regulate them like handguns are regulated. Same rules for buying, selling, interstate transfers, etc.

-- Narrow the definition of "AOW" to mean only guns that are so fully disguised that even looking at one from a close distance, from multiple angles, would not reveal its nature as a weapon. So no more "vertical fore-grip" AOWs. No more "wallet holster that you can shoot through" AOW's (if you can see a 2" diameter hole in the holster for access to the gun's trigger, and you see the trigger and the tip of the muzzle when the holster is pointed your way, you know there's a gun in there.)

-- for true AOW's that meet the new definition, reduce the "making" tax to $5 for individuals, but $200 for any person or entity making such items for resale and engaging in that business. Keep the $5 transfer tax. Keep all the other NFA restrictions. Form 1, Form 4, fingerprinting, etc. Just like it is now.

-- For machine guns and destructive devices (cannon, bazookas, grenade launchers, bombs, missiles), keep the current NFA rules in place. Same procedure, same fees and taxes.

-- BUT, repeal the Hughes Amendment to the NFA, and allow post-1986 machineguns to be sold to the public again. We allowed vetted and screened gun-collecting citizens to own newly-made machineguns from 1934-1986 without any problems. There was no "NFA registered guns being used in serious crime" problem that would even potentially justify the 1986 machinegun ban. And in the 30 years since the ban has been in place, no benefit has been derived. If there are fewer incidents of machine guns being used in crimes in these last 30 years (1986-2016) than the prior 30 years (1936-1986), we're not talking about legally-registered machineguns possessed by their correct owners, AND we have to consider that society has changed a lot from the tumultuous 1960s and radical early 1970s. The baby boomers have settled down and stopped causing trouble, for one thing!

-- With the 1986 MG ban repealed, I'll bet 100,000 more machineguns would be made and transferred within a three year period following the law's passage. At $200 per tax each, that's TWENTY MILLION extra dollars of revenue just for full-autos. Just from individual citizens and small businesses. Plus, manufacturers would pop up left and right, paying thousands of dollars per year to the feds to have their Class III S.O.T. to be in that business.

All the ATF workers that used to say busy processing Form 1's and Form 4's and other transfer forms for SBR's, SBS's, AOW's, and SILENCERS can now be re-tasked to working on those forms for machine guns and destructive devices.
 

·
NRA Instructor
Joined
·
3,391 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
The problem is this leaves the NFA in tact while still requiring special high taxes to be paid by only those that can afford them. It also keeps the base prices elevated and out of reach of more people. If you could walk in to a gun store and pick out an item currently on the MFA list, pass a back ground check and walk out with it the prices would come down as more choices would be available. With more respect for the 2A gun prices have already dropped more than the $10 tax so it would be offset in the base price of the firearm of choice.
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,519 Posts
keeps the base prices elevated... ???

The $200 tax would only apply to manufacturing a few kinds of rare and odd AOW's, a destructive devices, and MACHINE GUNS.

Now, do you REALLY think that $200. is an obstacle to the purchase of a transferable newly-made machinegun? It wouldn't be much of a barrier to a gun that would normally sell for $300, like a Tec-9 or SWD M11/9.
It would be an insignificant thing, no barrier at all, to a rifle-caliber weapon like an AR or AK, both of which are $700- $1000 weapons anyway, as semi-autos.
When you go up to the M1A / M14 guns, the Browning BAR's, the M60s and M249s, the M2 .50 heavy machineguns-- two hunnert bux aint nuffin. It's a drop in the bucket compared to the price of the firearm itself, inherently, regardless of NFA compliance costs.

Thanks to the Hughes Amendment, ugly little bullet hoses like the STEN and MAC-10 are selling for $7000- $10,000.
M16's are up to $30,000 as are most rifle caliber automatic rifles.
Belt fed guns like the M60 and German G43 are $50,000.

Tu hunnert dollas? Ain't no thang, when the supply of transferable MG's increases exponentially and the market settles in to prices in the $1000 to $10,000 range (and that's 10 thousand for something like a M2 fifty cal, or a Browning 1919 in .30-06, water cooled and belt fed....)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,956 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,956 Posts
Since the NFA repeal petition has surpassed the minimum for a response from the White House would you be willing to pay an extra $10 per firearm sold through an FFL in order to achieve this goal? this would amount to about $200,000,000 per year to the federal coffers.
Hell no! Instead of perpetuating an unconstitutional revenue stream for the feds, we should be looking at ways to reduce federal expenditures. There's lots of entitlement programs that are so abused it's ridiculous. Military and foreign "aid" to our "friends" (and worse, our enemies) needs to be drastically curtailed. Involvement with NATO and the UN should be terminated. All we are is a cash spigot to them anyway. And I certainly don't want to go to war to support some podunk NATO ally that means absolutely nothing to US interests. If Trump is honest about "America First" then he lots of options available to him that don't require growing the leviathan and could potentially shrink it.
 

·
Man of Myth and Legend
Joined
·
15,130 Posts
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top