Reopening the NFA registry

[Chatterbox]

I think it's true, it'll take a quite a few years for the courts to become comfortable enough with FA weapons to fairly consider the challenge the 1968 law that closed the registry. But what if we, gunowners of America, pitch towards a legislative solution which takes advantage of current concern with fiscal situation? Let us say that out of 80,000,000 gun owners only 1% would want to purchase a fully automatic weapon - a fairly conservative assumption, I'd say. And let us further say that the tax stamp for the FA weapons was set at something like $3000 - a rough equivalent of what $200 stamp was in the 1930s. That is $2.5B - a hefty chunk of change towards paying off the debt. Not to mention the stimulus to the economy of producing 800,000 guns. I think it could work. What do you think?

[dantodd]

I would agree that there is much greater chance of getting the registry re-opened legislatively than judicially for a few decades. FYI- the registry was closed in 1986 not 1968.

[RobG]

I think you vastly over estimate those willing to pay 3k for a NFA stamp.

[Chatterbox]

I think you vastly over estimate those willing to pay 3k for a NFA stamp.

I don't think so. The entire aftermarket industry which provides better stocks, mags, optics, slings, compensators and cup holders shows that there are quite a few gun owners willing to shell out the money to "pimp out" their toys.

[El Gato]

ummmm.....well.... I do have three children... I could like sell the oldest for medical experiments... he's at UC Santa Cruz anyway and any school what has a slug for a school mascot is going to turn his head to mush anyway..... he should be good for a couple of tax stamps and a M16 right?

[wildhawker]

Excuse me, miss, but would you mind grabbing your ankles?

[Chatterbox]

Excuse me, miss, but would you mind grabbing your ankles?

I guess I think Congress has looser morals then the Supreme Court.

[Dead*Reckoned]

They would have many, many more people if the stamp was in the 500-1000 range. Also 2 billion is really nothing on the 10's of trillions of dollars we are talking

[hoffmang]

Excuse me, miss, but would you mind grabbing your ankles?

-Gene

[bwiese]

I think you vastly over estimate those willing to pay 3k for a NFA stamp.

Um, there are tens of thousands of people that'd pay that just to have a plain AW in CA.

[oni.dori]

Um, there are tens of thousands of people that'd pay that just to have a plain AW in CA.

I would agree with you on that (although, I wouldn't personally want it to be ANYWHERE near the $3k range); also, I would use the term "assault weapon" loosely.

[Bhobbs]

I don't know. With the annual deduction I would take out for them infringing on our rights I think they should pay for our stamp for us.

[CCWFacts]

I actually think it will happen, legislatively, and maybe sooner than people realize.

Right now, there's a bill called the Veterans' Heritage Firearms Act which will add more guns to the registry for the first time since 1986. Doing so breaks down a psychological barrier. The 1986 cutoff is not some holy event, and the world doesn't end if more firearms are added. I also wonder if it might open more legal challenges, and also make some enforcement more difficult.

I'm also hopefully that, someday, there will be legal challenges.

[dantodd]

Um, there are tens of thousands of people that'd pay that just to have a plain AW in CA.

Sadly there are more than a few who have paid more than that because they DID have an AW in CA.

[Mstrty]

If pay 3k for a FA tax stamp ALL DAY LONG. Where do I sign?