Reopening the NFA registry

[dantodd]

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

But if they were still $200 and the registry were reopened you could buy 3 for the price of one.

The only real problem with this is that unless and until FA is considered protected by the Second Amendment California will never let them in. If/when they are protected by the second amendment we won't need a tax stamp and the registry can't be closed.

[GrayWolf09]

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

Getting rid of all the stupid California regulations would be my top priority.

I personally do not understand the appeal of full auto. My Uncle Samuel gave me a full auto one time and the first couple of times you pull the trigger and send the entire magazine down range it is fun, especially when he was providing the ammo. But after a while you realize you can fire almost as fast and with much better accuracy when you go semi-auto or short bursts.

[wildhawker]

You are SO DEAD.

-Gene

[rero360]

I personally think the $200 tax stamp is too high as it is, $3000 is absolutely highway robbery. In my mind of absolutes, there should be no taxes or fees to excercise our enumerated rights, however I understand we do not live in a perfect world and am willing to make certain concessions.

My suggestion is that we repeal the '86 act, make suppressors class 1, and reduce the stamp tax to $50, manufacturing, sales and revinue for all would sky rocket.

Me, under those circumstances, I'd purchase a MP5SD, a Thompson, a BAR, maybe one or two other full autos, and suppressors for everything I own. And I would happily pay the sales tax on all of those purchaces.

[E Pluribus Unum]

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?

What if the government wanted to charge you $3000 for the right to state that opinion?

I say... stop trying to license a right. "Shall not be infringed" means exactly what you think it means.

[formerTexan]

I don't know how the NFA's tax on transfers would pass ANY scrutiny. All you have to do is switch out mgs/sbr/sbs/silencers with say, e-books, where as "regular" physical books are not transferred with this tax. Why should one type of book be taxed differently than another?

The mechanism and requirements for Title II transfers is less straight forward to litigate IMHO.

[CaliforniaCarry]

I'll take something over nothing any day. I'd gladly pay a $3k fee for a brand-new legal FA weapon.

Even with the fee increase, this would save everyone a ton of money. A used M16 right now costs ~$13k to acquire legally (on a good day) (+ a negligible $200 tax stamp, of course). If the registry were opened, even with a $3k fee we'd be able to have new M16s for $7k - $8k (fee included). After the initial supply shortage you might even be able to get one for under $5k out the door. And keep in mind, this is for full-blown M16s, we aren't even talking about inexpensive FA solutions like lightning links or DIAS.

So, to the naysayers: What's better? Used M16s that cost ~$13k each, or brand-new M16s for $8k each? New M16s at fair retail prices with no NFA tax is not a valid answer; we're staying strictly within the confines of political reality (and probably even stretching it a bit as it is).

All this to say, the fact that the registry is closed is a bigger "tax" than this hypothetical $3000 fee. Open the registry, raise the fee, and we'll have our foot in the "common use" door in no-time

[Kharn]

When you offer compromises is when you get screwed. Letting the antis know you'd be willing to pay $3k is when they raise the tax but "forget" to remove 922(o).

And no, I'm not willing to pay $3k in taxes to build a Sten from random chunks of pipe in my barn or to drill one hole in an AR. Rights should not hinge on the ability to pay a tax, especially not one that is a significant percentage of the median annual income.

[Chatterbox]

What if the government wanted to charge you $3000 for the right to state that opinion?

What if the government didn't just want to charge me $3000 for the right to state an opinion, but wanted to flat out prohibit me from stating it? It can certainly do it right now, if my opinion was judged to be dangerous and inflammatory enough ("Shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater"). That has been accepted as a reasonable limitation on 1st Amendment speech right for the last 100 years, and I see no reason why a similar limitation on 2nd Amendment rights could not stand judicial review for another 100.

And that is why I believe a tax, which gives government reasonable incentive to grow the FA ownership, is a better means of achieving the end result.

[yellowfin]

Messing with the stamp price is NOT something you want to do. They'll just jack it up on all 5 categories, so then you'll end up paying that same $3000 for a can that's currently $400-500 plus the stamp. NOT smart.

[ptoguy2002]

I'm in for a couple at $3K, but it shouldn't have to come to that.
ETA: and yellow's got a point, they would probably raise it on all of them.

[Wherryj]

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

I paid almost that for my Kalifornicated semi-auto black rifle. I would have paid twice that amount for one that didn't require the BB/low cap mags. I think that you would be correct on that one.

[Chatterbox]

Here we are living with it and having people suggest voluntarily jack up the $200 fee to $3000!!

Do you believe that we're more likely to see NFA registry reopened with FA fee at $200 or $3000?

[RobG]

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

Pay 3 thousand dollars for the "priviledge" of taking off the bullet button? Um, no thanks. The AR platform isn't that cool.

I paid almost that for my Kalifornicated semi-auto black rifle. I would have paid twice that amount for one that didn't require the BB/low cap mags. I think that you would be correct on that one.

You'd be willing to pay nearly 6 grand to take off the BB and use norm caps in an AR15? Really?

[Chatterbox]

It has nothing to do with $$

You are confusing the issue unless this thread is for purely entertainment purposes (in which case
your sense of humor is the same as mine )

The 2nd is a right!

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya

The fact that 2nd Amendment states that we have certain rights does not exclude the legality of regulation of those rights. Like it or not, that has been the case pretty much for as long as USA has existed. Given that, it's very possible that the courts will conclude that regulation on possession of machine guns is entirely consistent with 2nd amendment. Which leaves us with political solutions to the problem.