Would you buy NFA stuff if the tax was less?

[strat81]

After reading this thread, http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=312789, I was thinking:

Would you buy a silencer, SBS, or SBR if the tax was only $25 but you STILL had to register it, get the forms filled out, dance a jig, and jump through hoops like you currently do?




(P.S. In this scenario, machineguns are still expensive because of '86)

 

[atek3]

if I didn't have to pay 200 dollars in tax on a 300 dollar can I'd have one tomorrow

atek3

 

[RNB65]

The tax is irrelevant. Considering that any decent full-auto weapon is going to cost $10K+, a $200 tax is nothing.

If big government must stick it's nose into my business (and we all know it's going to), I would prefer that the '86 lock on the NFA registry be removed and the SOT tax be raised to $2000. $2000-3000 street price for a NEW M16/M4 + $2000 tax stamp would be a WAY better deal than what we currently have.

 

[cyclist]

The amount of the tax isn't the issue.

 

[Tin Gizel]

it's the process that keeps me from NFA items, not the tax...

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

If Michigan allowed SBRs and suppressors, I would fill out the forms today with the current laws and get an SBR AR15 or XCR and a suppressor for my Walter P22. Alas, Michigan is a blue state and I can only have deadly weapons that are "safe".

 

[repsychler]

As others have said, the money isn't really the issue. It would make a suppressor quite a bit more affordable, but another 200 bucks is a drop in the bucket if you're buying a machine gun.

 

[Punkermonkey]

It would be nice if the tax was $25. It would also be nice if California allowed NFA items in the first place.

 

[Mikee Loxxer]

The $200 tax is not what dissuades me from pursuing the NFA stuff I would like to get (MG's). It is their exorbident cost.

 

[BridgeWalker]

Wrt to machine guns, it is both the exorbitant cost and the registration that I would want to avoid.

But as for suppressors, I'd have to do more research. A continual worry for me is how to continue shooting if I get pregnant. During my last pregnancies I just gave up shooting entirely, which is not a real god solution. I dunno if a suppressor would be enough to make me comfortable with shooting while pregnant, but it's a possibility I've thought about a bit. If it turned out to be an option worthy of pursuing, then yeah, I probably still won't do it, mostly because the exorbitant cost of the tax stamp.

Other than that, it's .22lr sub-sonic for me....

edit: just noticed MI doesn't allow them anyway according to another poster. Oh well. Just goes to show how much teh tax amount dissuaded me from pursuing it, sinc eI hadn't even bothered to go beyond vaguely thinking about it.

 

[Technosavant]

I'd love a full auto rifle, but they aren't worth the price of a small car to me. The closure of the NFA registry is probably a larger obstacle to just about all of us than a $200 tax stamp. Heck, we'd probably order more than $200 worth of ammo the moment the form was approved.

Reopen the registry and I bet the ATF and CLEOs across the nation will be deluged with people buying NFA stuff.

 

[Jdude]

Putting my name on the NFA registry and the several other hoops is the reason I have not done so. Hopefully Parker/Heller will open up the path to overturning it, or remove it altogether.

 

[trueblue1776]

I voted yes, but I think it's ironic to claim to own guns because of the second amend, then put your name (willfully) on a list of guys who own serious firepower. If confiscation time ever comes around, the ATF will be up those guys' collective butt long before anyone knows I have a few toys.

 

[pax]

I would probably pick up a silencer if there was no outrageous tax AND it was legal in my state (which, sigh, it's not). I am not afraid of a list -- if you're posting here, you're on somebody's list, somewhere, already. But I'm not into throwing my money at the government when I don't have to.

pax

 

[Deanimator]

My few interactions with BATF[E] have been so infuriating, I'm not sure I could stand to talk to them. I hate being lied to.

 

[Tommygunn]

I'm going to chime in with the guys who say it isn't the $200 tax, it's the cost of full-auto weapons themselves. If I could justify spending the big money for a full auto the tax would be nothing.
I am also chagrined by the process though; while the NICS check is tolerable since it's supposedly "instant," the process of applying for a NFA weapon is too intrusive ... and I can't get past the idea that it's my government basically telling me "I DON'T TRUST YOU."

 

[kd7nqb]

The 200 dollar tax is NOT The issue. The issue is supply being controlled so a gun that costs 1200 to a .gov agency costs me 12grand.

 

[308win]

If fully automatic weapons could be purchased off the rack so to speak I would expect prices to come down.

 

[frankcostanza]

if i had the money to pay 15 grand for a full auto rifle, i probably wouldnt think twice about the extra 200 bucks. the $200 tax wouldnt be a deal breaker for me, although i dont like it. the deal breaker for me is the fixed supply of full auto guns and the outrageous prices on them

 

[SuperNaut]

As everybody else has stated; it ain't the tax.

 

[Justin]

Would you buy a silencer, SBS, or SBR if the tax was only $25 but you STILL had to register it, get the forms filled out, dance a jig, and jump through hoops like you currently do?

The OP didn't mention machine guns in his post, so I assume those have been excluded because there's fundamentally no reason to dicker over a $175 difference in a tax stamp for a weapon that costs four or five figures.

Personally, for me, the reason I haven't made the jump to an NFA item such as a SBR or a suppressor is simply a result of unfamiliarity with the process. I've never jumped through the legal hoops to buy an NFA item. From my perspective the process looks rather daunting.

Personally, if I had a choice between a $25 tax stamp, or being able to buy suppressors/SBR's/SBS's by filling out a 4473, I'd happily pay the $200 tax.

 

[mp510]

I was more than happy to go through the rectal exam with the tax at $200. Reducing it, would simply make it a more frequent occurance.

 

[General Geoff]

Agree with Justin.


Drop the paperwork and I'd be more than happy to pay a $200 tax (which, without the paperwork, might actually generate legitimate revenue for the Treasury Department) for a well made suppressor, or a SBR or SBS.

 

[El Tejon]

Move NFA stuff to Title I with federal preemption; we can start by moving suppressors (for the sake of the health of the children, won't you please think of the children) to Title I.

 

[taliv]

i don't enjoy it, but the $200 tax hasn't stopped me from buying a couple cans or SBRing a rifle. I'll be up to 4 cans by summer, if the custom one i'm waiting on gets done.