The AWB and NFA

[Dr. Fresh]

This may be a dumb question, but since the Stryker shotgun was randomly declared an NFA weapon, could firearms banned under a new AWB become NFA weapons, thus requiring taxation and registration?

If so, that would be terrible for those of us in states banning NFA weapons altogether.

 

[Byron Quick]

Yes, the ATF placed the Stryker under the NFA without legislation or an executive order so conceivably they will do it again.

Does your state's statute specifically ban any weapon designated as being covered by the NFA?

 

[MGshaggy]

The reclassification of certain shotguns as DD's was well within the current law and didn't require any new statute be passed. They (BATFE) just decided to enforce it more strictly. A DD is defined in part as "any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes (26 USC 5845(f)(2)). Thus if the Sec. of the Treasury finds a particular shotgun not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, it can be classified as a DD.

Reclassifying semi-auto "assault rifles" (or other guns not currently covered by the NFA) as NFA weapons would require a new law with a new classification in the NFA to cover those guns, or it would necessarily require rewriting the statutory definitions currently within the NFA to include those new firearms under some NFA classification. Could that be accomplished in the context of a new AWB? Absolutely, but keep in mind, any new reclassification requiring registration and a tax payment (like a statutory reclassification of semis as NFA weapons) would almost certainly require an amnesty period during which you could register sans tax payment to avoid potential 5th amendment entanglements.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

or an "executive order"...

 

[rfurtkamp]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This may be a dumb question, but since the Stryker shotgun was randomly declared an NFA weapon, could firearms banned under a new AWB become NFA weapons, thus requiring taxation and registration?

My understanding for the USAS/SS DD declarations is that it required registration up to a particular cutoff date, but no tax payment. Weapons not registered magically became contraband afterwards.

 

[MGshaggy]

or an "executive order"...

An EO isn't a statute. It can direct executive agencies to do certain things already within their statutorily granted powers such as promulgate new regulations, but the agency must have that statutorily granted authority to regulate in that specific area to begin with.

 

[Dr. Fresh]

Well I live in WA, and I know full auto is illegal, but I don't know what the law says about SBRs, DDs, SBSes, and AOWs. Just seems that if they decided to go that route, my state could very well do away with all "assault weapons," which would leave me completely gunless (pretty much).

 

[Sunray]

"...ATF placed the Stryker under the NFA without legislation..." Another example of your ATF making law by regulation. Sadly, our RCMP is busy doing the same thing.

 

[ProficientRifleman]

The Secretary of the Treasury, at the time Lloyd Benson, made a finding (at the direction of the Klintons), that the gun had a bore diameter of over half an inch and was not a "sporting weapon". Therefore, under the GCA of 1968, he declared it, and the USAS-12, to be a DD.

 

[ProficientRifleman]

One more thought,

The power to regulate under the NFA was given to the Dept. of the Treasury, because it was supposed to be a tax measure, remember? It was supposed to raise revenue for the government, not prohibit, nor inhibit the ownership and use of weapons.

That power has now been taken from the Secretary of the Treasury and handed to the Attorney General....hmmmm, curious, that.

It would seem now that the nation's chief Law Enforcement Officer now has the authority to tell YOU what weapons you may and may not posses.

Things get curiouser and curiouser, and we get the government we deserve.

 

[buzz_knox]

The power to regulate under the NFA was given to the Dept. of the Treasury, because it was supposed to be a tax measure, remember? It was supposed to raise revenue for the government, not prohibit, nor inhibit the ownership and use of weapons.

Actually, the NFA was created to regulate and deter ownership of covered weapons. The $200 tax was punitive, given that this was the Depression. In today's dollars, it would be the equivalent of over $3000, every time an NFA weapon (other than an AOW) changes hands, and this when the economy was far worse than it currently is.

 

[MGshaggy]

The power to regulate under the NFA was given to the Dept. of the Treasury, because it was supposed to be a tax measure, remember? It was supposed to raise revenue for the government, not prohibit, nor inhibit the ownership and use of weapons. That power has now been taken from the Secretary of the Treasury and handed to the Attorney General....hmmmm, curious, that.

Not so curious if you know the history. The NFA was regulated under the treasury because at the time (1934) it was thought the only way to regulate (or prohibit) would be under the congressional power to tax since there is no federal police power. After Wickard v. Filburn was decided in 1942, it was then clear the authority to regulate interstate commerce could be used to accomplish the same thing, which is why gun laws after that point were premised on the authority in the commerce clause rather than as a tax measure.

 

[ProficientRifleman]

Actually, the NFA was created to regulate and deter ownership of covered weapons. The $200 tax was punitive, given that this was the Depression. In today's dollars, it would be the equivalent of over $3000, every time an NFA weapon (other than an AOW) changes hands, and this when the economy was far worse than it currently is.

No, Buzz,
Our benevolent Socialist Dictator at the time, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and his Solicitor General, decided that they COULDN"T directly ban weapons without running afoul of the 2A.

They just wanted to raise some extra revenue...I'm sure of it.

 

[NukemJim]

A question for those who know more law than I (Which includes just about anybody )

My understanding was that if it was a tax that it had to produce revenue and that it was illegal for a tax to be so high as to ban something or make it restrictive.

Obviously $3K per firearm that could cost $300.00 to make (I'm thinking full auto 10-22, Sten, late model Thompsons etc...) is definetly restrictive and it's main purpose is not revenue.

How come the courts never pay attention to that little detail?

NukemJim

 

[rfurtkamp]

$200 tax these days is a fraction of the weapon cost. For MGs and high end SBRs, it's a pittance of the overall price.

 

[DMF]

The power to regulate under the NFA was given to the Dept. of the Treasury, because it was supposed to be a tax measure, remember? It was supposed to raise revenue for the government, not prohibit, nor inhibit the ownership and use of weapons.

That power has now been taken from the Secretary of the Treasury and handed to the Attorney General....hmmmm, curious, that.

The NFA statutes are still tax statutes. The authority to make certain rulings under that statute were given to the Sec. of the Treasury because the agency with primary responsibility for enforcing that statute was part of the Department of the Treasury, and that authority remained the the Sec. of the Treasury until the ATF was moved from Treasury to DOJ Congress amended the statute to move the authority to the AG.

Another example of this is the relief from disabilities authority in Title 18 of the US Code. That had nothing to do with taxation, but the authority to grant relief was with the Sec. of Treasury while ATF was under the Dept. of the Treasury. Now that ATF is under DOJ that authority moved to the AG. Yes I know Congress refuses to fund ATF for relief of firearms disabilities (although they still do explosives relief), but that is just an example showing the head of a particular department was given certain authority.

This is some conspiracy, it's an issue of which department has oversight over the agency responsible for enforcing the statute.

 

[NukemJim]

$200 tax these days is a fraction of the weapon cost. For MGs and high end SBRs, it's a pittance of the overall price.

Yes that is true now but not when NFA of '34 was passed. See below

The $200 tax was punitive, given that this was the Depression. In today's dollars, it would be the equivalent of over $3000, every time an NFA weapon (other than an AOW) changes hands, and this when the economy was far worse than it currently is.

Also I proposed some firearms that could be Full Auto for less than the tax. (Ruger 10-22 in full auto would be my choice then I could afford to shoot it).
Can anyone think of a federal tax that is more than the cost of the item that is being taxed?

NukemJim

 

[red headed stranger]

Yes that is true now but not when NFA of '34 was passed. See below

It is especially onerous when one considers that the simple act of taking a hacksaw to an old shotgun incurs a $200 tax.

When one considers the cheap parts required in the manufacture of a suppressor, the $200 tax is still excessive today.