How much would you pay?

[crackback 135]

Given that our bloated federal gov't is facing a revenue crunch of its own making I thought of a novel and quite well... for lack of a better term... wicked awesome way to help them out with that. The idea is to tweak the NFA by attaching this rider to a non related firearms bill at the last minute at 0200 (like Hughes did with FOPA in '86) to allow for the creation of transferable MGs again. However, the tax would be adjusted for inflation and then some. (I realize it is more likely that Bethlehem Steel or LTV will put a new virgin steel blast furnace in downtown San Francisco but what the hell)

 

So my question to y'all is: What would you pay to be able to do this again?

 

A little anecdote: I was a little kid back then in 85-86 but I vaguely remember my dad's 1st cousin having a "Chuck Norris gun" as I called it (M60) , plus an M16. My dad told me later when I became interested in firearms , that this cousin told him at the Easter family get together in '86 that he should buy one as an investment. Coulda...shoulda...woulda... Anyway

 

Keep in mind: $200 in 1934 was equivalent to about $1642 in 1986 and $3171 today.

 

I would cough up $5000 gladly to get a tax stamp for this.

Edited August 3, 2010 by 690gr

[beefcakeb99 572]

I think $200 is sufficient infringement if you ask me.

[physicsnerd 139]

I think $200 is sufficient infringement if you ask me.

 

Agreed. Rather than figuring out new ways to tax people they could just start spending less.

 

I'd gladly pay the unmolested market price for a FA rifle/pistol/shotgun but a $5000 tax stamp? No way. We only are fortunate that the Fed has diluted our money supply to the point where $200 is even affordable to some.

[superA 289]

I'm against all of it. We shouldn't be taxed for any of it. Why can't we have machine guns. All of a sudden law abiding people are gonna go ape shit crazy because their rifle if full auto instead of semi?

[crackback 135]

At $5000 for the stamp, your coming out way cheaper, for instance, on an AR15 ($500 to $1700 for the base rifle) conversion than a transferable M16 today ($14 to 18k).

 

$5000 is the top end of what I would pay. Plus almost all of the current transferables (that have parts/parts kits available) would crash in price overnight.

 

I agree with Super that we shouldn't be taxed extra at all for this. This is just a thought exercise of a plausible but unlikely way to repeal the Hughes amendment.

 

Also to clear up any confusion, the transfer tax would still be $200. This is only for the manufacturing tax.

Edited August 2, 2010 by 690gr

[308SAIGA 55]

$0 have you heard of the term "Shall not be infringed?" Why should we have to pay for something we already have a right too?

 

Just my $0.02 cents......

[nalioth 405]

I'd be happy with'em opening up the registry again (at the current $200 tax rate)

 

Not sayin' we couldn't do without the taxation on our rights, but, little steps are better than no steps.

[crackback 135]

I'd be happy with'em opening up the registry again (at the current $200 tax rate)

 

Not sayin' we couldn't do without the taxation on our rights, but, little steps are better than no steps.

 

I would love to see the registry reopened in the next 10 years, however, I think that in the unlikely event it was the tax amount would be upped to maintain the "prohibitive" cost that was there in 1934 at $200 ($3171) today. I was curious as to what amount people would pay for the ability to manufacture without SOT status. $200 now is about $12 back then! It seems most would not pay more than $200 to manufacture new items thus far which is a bit surprising to me.

[crackback 135]

$0 have you heard of the term "Shall not be infringed?" Why should we have to pay for something we already have a right too?

 

Just my $0.02 cents......

 

I know the term well and I agree with the concept of a people acting as a bulwark against tyranny by being informed and armed. Up until 1934 without infringement and additional cost and 1986 in absolute terms the citizenry of the USA could bear arms equivalent to those of a potential domestic tyrant like the patriots at Bunker Hill and Lexington did.

[mgconnor13 206]

I would prefer if the feds would bug off and let me do what ever I want. remember a black powered rifle was state of the art military tech back in the day. why can't I have state of the art stuff if I want? Had my choice I wouldn't pay the Gov't one cent and I don't expect jack in return. A M2 would rock

[Raoul_Duke 113]

While, like most, I agree tha BATFE should just take a running leap off a tall cliff, I also agree with "little steps are better than no steps."

 

That being said, your math in post #5 sounds much more reasonable than the way things are right now.

[308SAIGA 55]

While, like most, I agree tha BATFE should just take a running leap off a tall cliff, I also agree with "little steps are better than no steps."

 

That being said, your math in post #5 sounds much more reasonable than the way things are right now.

 

This is a misconception on peoples part, BATF does not put laws into place they enforce them, our Federal Legislators are the ones who need to take a few steps back......

[bigj480 203]

While, like most, I agree tha BATFE should just take a running leap off a tall cliff, I also agree with "little steps are better than no steps."

 

That being said, your math in post #5 sounds much more reasonable than the way things are right now.

 

This is a misconception on peoples part, BATF does not put laws into place they enforce them, our Federal Legislators are the ones who need to take a few steps back......

 

The laws are vague and the BATF's interpretation is too broad. They virtually write the law by choosing how THEY wish to interpret it. I agree, though, politicians are also far from innocent. It's about time voters take some power away from both parties IMHO.

Edited August 3, 2010 by bigj480

[Raoul_Duke 113]

While, like most, I agree tha BATFE should just take a running leap off a tall cliff, I also agree with "little steps are better than no steps."

 

That being said, your math in post #5 sounds much more reasonable than the way things are right now.

 

This is a misconception on peoples part, BATF does not put laws into place they enforce them, our Federal Legislators are the ones who need to take a few steps back......

I know. No misconception here. Anyone who would enforce such unconstitutional laws should have the same fate as those who made the laws. I'm not letting anyone off the hook here. They're all swine.