Bill introduced to raise NFA transfer tax

[AlexanderA]

H.R. 5103 would increase the transfer tax from $200 to $500 (from $5 to $100 for "any other weapons"), increase licensing fees, and create AR-type "pistols" as a new NFA category. No beneficial offsets in the bill as far as I see.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5103/text?q={"search":["gun+tax"]}&r=1

Oh, and it also raises the manufacturers' excise tax on ordinary firearms to 20%, and on ammunition to 50%. And the funds would be diverted to community policing and other purposes rather than wildlife conservation.

 

[Telekinesis]

It also looks to include inflationary adjustments, so the tax will increase every year (unless of course we have a year with negative inflation, but let's not hope for that!)

I'm hopeful that this bill never sees the light of day. However the pessimistic side of me says that this is a place where the "good ol boys" will be happy to sacrifice as long as the politicians agree not to go after their deer rifles.

 

[AlexanderA]

I don't think it has much chance of passage. However, it's one more bad omen. I don't recall any recent previous attempts to monkey with the NFA. (The $200 tax hasn't been raised since 1934.)

 

[JeffG]

NRA should introduce bills to dissolve the NFA tax, and take suppressors off of the list.

 

[DoubleMag]

I believe everything submitted has a chance of passage, I believe everyone who sponsors these style bills are very serious and not just showboating. Therefore I do not relieve myself of my CIVIC DUTY to contact my Congresscritters

YMMV

 

[Ryanxia]

I don't think it has much chance of passage. However, it's one more bad omen. I don't recall any recent previous attempts to monkey with the NFA. (The $200 tax hasn't been raised since 1934.)

They tried about 2 or 3 years ago to raise the NFA tax to $500. Still, we need to remain vigilant and contact our reps.

 

[shoobe01]

Explain this part from TTAG article on it:

• Would reclassify pistols that fire rounds commonly associated with rifles as firearms. Think AR and AK pistols.

What does this mean, legally? Someone who has read the bill maybe, what are they talking about?

 

[Ryanxia]

Explain this part from TTAG article on it:

• Would reclassify pistols that fire rounds commonly associated with rifles as firearms. Think AR and AK pistols.

What does this mean, legally? Someone who has read the bill maybe, what are they talking about?

Good catch. Pistols that could become NFA items under that sentence; .22 LR, .17HMR, & lots more I'm sure.

 

[AlexanderA]

Good catch. Pistols that could become NFA items under that sentence; .22 LR, .17HMR, & lots more I'm sure.

Technically, maybe. (That language would be cleaned up if it got close to passage.) But what they're really trying to go after are SBR's that are considered "pistols" because of a lack of a stock. And it's a way of cracking down on the "arm brace" workaround.

Of course, the more sensible way to deal with this issue would be to deregulate SBR's entirely.

 

[Browning]

Great.

I'll contact my reps, but considering I live in TX I'm pretty sure that they'll already be voting against it.

 

[AlexanderA]

I'll contact my reps, but considering I live in TX I'm pretty sure that they'll already be voting against it.

Won't come up for a vote. Probably will not even be considered in committee. Not this year. The introduction of this thing is "strategic positioning."

 

[748]

The NFA should be raising enough money to pay for its self, not punishing people who utilize it.
Jumping the tax up to $500 shouldn't be the way to do it.
A set increase of 5 or 10 dollars per year for say 10 years and it better get the wait time down.
If they allowed registration of new full auto, sure I would pay a 500 transfer on that.

If I actually though paying get more taxes would get better service in return I would do it but I am highly sceptical.

 

[Ryanxia]

The NFA should be raising enough money to pay for its self, not punishing people who utilize it.
Jumping the tax up to $500 shouldn't be the way to do it.
A set increase of 5 or 10 dollars per year for say 10 years and it better get the wait time down.
If they allowed registration of new full auto, sure I would pay a 500 transfer on that.

If I actually though paying get more taxes would get better service in return I would do it but I am highly sceptical.

The money for the tax stamps goes into the general fund and has nothing to do with the turn around times / service we get. Also we need to be going in the other direction of dismantling it not offering to pay more, it's a clear violation of our Rights. There are more challenges coming to the Hughes Amendment and National Firearms Act. While I'm not holding my breath, if we keep beating on the walls at some point the foundation may crack.

 

[Telekinesis]

The NFA should be raising enough money to pay for its self, not punishing people who utilize it.

The whole point of the NFA was to effectively ban the weapons by making it impossible (or highly impractical) to pay the registration fee. At the time the fee was set, the average cost of a new car was $650-1,000 and average income was less than $2,000/year. The $200 registration fee was designed to be so expensive that no one was able to pay it, or at least willing to pay it, just to have a gun.

Luckily congress didn't realize that in 80 years inflation would make the fee somewhat more reasonable.

 

[AABEN]

The Dems are at it again !! We need to watch this and start talking to any one that has a gun and tell are people in office to say NO to it

 

[748]

The tax stamp money may have gone to the government general fund at one time if my memory is correct.
The last $200 check was made out to ATF.
The first ones I did, long time ago I'm pretty sure they went to depart of treasury.
Now it's going to the ATF general fund.

Then if ATF offered 500 dollar transfer of new machine guns to civilians, I don' think anyone would complain.

 

[CapnMac]

Now it's going to the ATF general fund.

ATF "general fund" is the same "general fund" IRS monies go into; or Medicare taxes, or the like.
Just becasue the check is made out to an agency does not mean it's the agency's money. It' just a reciept for billing purposes.

Then if ATF offered 500 dollar transfer of new machine guns to civilians, I don' think anyone would complain.

Not theirs to offer--would require Congressional action to repeal the Hughes Amendment to FOPA'86.
So, not even negotiable. Nor offered.

As noted above, what "we" need is to get things out of Title II, not higgle-piggle over what the onerous tax amount is.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

...it also raises the manufacturers' excise tax on ordinary firearms to 20%, and on ammunition to 50%...

I know this is the NFA sub-forum, but this right here is the really scary part. Essentially, we should expect the cost of all guns to increase by 20% and all ammo to increase by 50%. I think I just completely rewrote my monthly budget for the foreseeable future.

On a side note, I wonder if that tax applies only to manufactured ammo or if it applies to ammo components (power, primer, projectiles, cases) as well.

 

[AlexanderA]

On a side note, I wonder if that tax applies only to manufactured ammo or if it applies to ammo components (power, primer, projectiles, cases) as well.

It applies to "shells and cartridges," whatever that means.

 

[giggitygiggity]

Let's apply a paradox to the 1st Amendment. If someone wants to use a sentence in it that has a swear word, they should have to submit the statement that they want to say (just like we have to do with firearms that we are looking to SBR/SBS, etc), in writing, to the government, pay a tax (NFA $200 tax), wait 6-12 months (like we do for NFA firearms), and then receive a signed tax stamp back allowing them to use the swear word (or take possession/construct the NFA item).

I love how liberals love to say that words can hurt and that the pen is mightier than the sword. If that is so, then why are they not pushing laws that restrict the 1st Amendment so people aren't hurt by words? It's because they live in an imaginary world of double standards!

 

[Sistema1927]

If you can't outright ban something then tax it out of existence. Same result either way.

 

[adcoch1]

Let's apply a paradox to the 1st Amendment. If someone wants to use a sentence in it that has a swear word, they should have to submit the statement that they want to say (just like we have to do with firearms that we are looking to SBR/SBS, etc), in writing, to the government, pay a tax (NFA $200 tax), wait 6-12 months (like we do for NFA firearms), and then receive a signed tax stamp back allowing them to use the swear word (or take possession/construct the NFA item).

I love how liberals love to say that words can hurt and that the pen is mightier than the sword. If that is so, then why are they not pushing laws that restrict the 1st Amendment so people aren't hurt by words? It's because they live in an imaginary world of double standards!

They are trying to ban words they don't agree with, but it's hard to run roughshod over citizens possessing firearms. Hence the attack on the 2A.
A repeal of the Hughes amendment would make me happy too, but remember, the NFA IS gun registration, and any gun roundups will start with our legal NFA weapons.