Fresh Hell, Increase the NFA stamp tax

[pronstar]

I worry less about this than most people. If we ever needed to really play hardball with China, all we'd have to do is stop protecting the sea lanes from the middle east to China. Oil tankers would become prime targets for piracy. No one would insure those ships any more. The flow of oil to China would be so choked off they'd be on their knees begging us for mercy.

Our saving grace is that the debts must be repaid in US dollars.

That’s why the government wants inflation, it effectively reduces the debt.

And they can literally print those dollars if need be.

That’s the beauty of being the reserve currency of the world. Our military spending is fundamentally there to protect this status.

Our country will literally wage war before giving up reserve currency status.

No value judgement...it is what it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[benenglish]

Problem is the Biden's are so far into bed with the Chinese, there isn't any way they would play hardball with China.

Valid point. However, I don't think the need to play real hardball will arise before Biden is out of office.

The thing that would spark the need to play real hardball is what Texasjack talked about - if China moves on Taiwan or the Philippines. I don't believe the CCP is stupid enough to go that far; they have a hard enough time holding their own country together. If they do move on Taiwan, things will get interesting; no matter who the U.S. President is, the resulting outcry from the whole world would force the U.S. to take strong action.

As for the Philippines, I don't worry. China doesn't have the sea power to project that far from their shores. 20 or 30 years from now might be a different story but not any time soon.

 

[benenglish]

Our country will literally wage war before giving up reserve currency status.

The beauty of the current reality is that there's no need to wage war. There's no other currency out there that could feasibly replace the dollar. I believe that will remain true for decades to come. That's why I find this...

That’s why the government wants inflation, it effectively reduces the debt.

...particulary worrisome. It's emblematic of the fact that the folks who control the fate of the U.S. dollar don't really have U.S. interests as their primary goal.

 

[benenglish]

On 8Apr21, Rep Jamie Haskin introduced a bill to the House that would increase the cost of NFA stamp 50% from $200 to $300. Coincidence that just as the Biden bunch wants to turn braced pistols to SBRs, a bill is introduced to raise the tax stamp? I think not.

This could be a blessing in disguise. It would give lots of people standing to re-litigate the notion that it's just a tax and not a 2A infringement.

 

[Axxe55]

This could be a blessing in disguise. It would give lots of people standing to re-litigate the notion that it's just a tax and not a 2A infringement.

I'm not following you there Ben. What would be the difference between a tax and an infringement?

Do they not accomplish the same objective for them?

 

[Bozz10mm]

This could be a blessing in disguise. It would give lots of people standing to re-litigate the notion that it's just a tax and not a 2A infringement.

Exactly. Even tho it is an infringement, it is also a tax on a constitutional right. Same as poll taxes, but yet poll taxes are not legal. Could be a legal precedence to eliminate it.

 

[ScorpionHunter]

I agree, and I'm sure there are many others that would agree as well.

It does strike me as to why Trump didn't dismantle the ATF during his administration. Questions. Who can dismantle or eliminate a federal agency? Is Congress required? Can a sitting president order the elimination of a federal agency?

AFAIK, if the agency is created by an act of Congress, no. Congress would have to do it. With the ATF's roots in the IRS, I don't think a president could eliminate it no matter how much he wanted to.

 

[benenglish]

What would be the difference between a tax and an infringement?

In practical terms, nothing. However, in legal terms, there's a huge difference. The NFA continues to exist because it doesn't infringe on the 2A (so the theory goes) but merely levies a few taxes and sets up all the mechanisms to do that.

In reality, of course the NFA is a 2A infringement. The $200 tax is an infringement. But U.S. v Miller was a long time ago and no one wants to fire up a new case unless they can get the right set of circumstances.

So what happens if the $200 is changed to $300? Legislative intent becomes an issue and may form the basis for litigation. If the good guys can go to court to say "Look, this money is being charged simply to deny 2A rights. We've got the politicians who voted for it on record as saying they want to use it for this purpose." then a court may decide that the whole notion of taxing a right is a bad idea.

From there, we would get to argue over what right is guaranteed by the 2A. That's when it'll be time to invoke precedent - U.S. v Miller. In that (imo, absolutely wonderful) ruling, the court said that sawed-off shotguns had not been shown to be valid military equipment and, therefore, were not protected by the 2A. Their reasoning was that the 2A protects weapons in common use by the military. Their conclusion was terrible simply because the case for Miller was presented in a comedically incompetent manner.

But if we can get back to court on a similar question, we can do better. We can show that assault rifles and short-barrelled long guns are standard infantry equipment. We, the believers in the 2A, can shove U.S. v Miller in their faces and try to force them to follow the reasoning of that ruling. If we're successful at that, the NFA will cease to exist.

Yeah, that's probably all a pipe dream but, hey, sometimes I like to dream.

 

[oldag]

Valid point. However, I don't think the need to play real hardball will arise before Biden is out of office.

The thing that would spark the need to play real hardball is what Texasjack talked about - if China moves on Taiwan or the Philippines. I don't believe the CCP is stupid enough to go that far; they have a hard enough time holding their own country together. If they do move on Taiwan, things will get interesting; no matter who the U.S. President is, the resulting outcry from the whole world would force the U.S. to take strong action.

As for the Philippines, I don't worry. China doesn't have the sea power to project that far from their shores. 20 or 30 years from now might be a different story but not any time soon.

Have to strongly disagree. China is just waiting until they are confident the US will not react militarily, then they will pounce.
Which could be in the next few years. They may figure this administration is their best chance.

No amount of outcry would prompt Biden to take military action if he did not want to do so. He would just flap his jaws, draw red lines, impose meaningless sanctions.

Look at Putin testing Biden on Ukraine.

IIRC, when China was saber rattling about Taiwan when W was in the WH, he sent a carrier task force through the straits by Taiwan. China shut up.

 

[Axxe55]

AFAIK, if the agency is created by an act of Congress, no. Congress would have to do it. With the ATF's roots in the IRS, I don't think a president could eliminate it no matter how much he wanted to.

I wasn't for sure, but that was what I suspected. Thank you.

 

[Axxe55]

In practical terms, nothing. However, in legal terms, there's a huge difference. The NFA continues to exist because it doesn't infringe on the 2A (so the theory goes) but merely levies a few taxes and sets up all the mechanisms to do that.

In reality, of course the NFA is a 2A infringement. The $200 tax is an infringement. But U.S. v Miller was a long time ago and no one wants to fire up a new case unless they can get the right set of circumstances.

So what happens if the $200 is changed to $300? Legislative intent becomes an issue and may form the basis for litigation. If the good guys can go to court to say "Look, this money is being charged simply to deny 2A rights. We've got the politicians who voted for it on record as saying they want to use it for this purpose." then a court may decide that the whole notion of taxing a right is a bad idea.

From there, we would get to argue over what right is guaranteed by the 2A. That's when it'll be time to invoke precedent - U.S. v Miller. In that (imo, absolutely wonderful) ruling, the court said that sawed-off shotguns had not been shown to be valid military equipment and, therefore, were not protected by the 2A. Their reasoning was that the 2A protects weapons in common use by the military. Their conclusion was terrible simply because the case for Miller was presented in a comedically incompetent manner.

But if we can get back to court on a similar question, we can do better. We can show that assault rifles and short-barrelled long guns are standard infantry equipment. We, the believers in the 2A, can shove U.S. v Miller in their faces and try to force them to follow the reasoning of that ruling. If we're successful at that, the NFA will cease to exist.

Yeah, that's probably all a pipe dream but, hey, sometimes I like to dream.

Okay, that makes sense now. Yes, I too think an abolishment of the 1934 NFA is pipe dream, and like many other gun owners would love to see it disappear, but rooted in reality, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting on it to happen.

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Charlie]

A knowledgeable friend of mine told me there is something going on with legislation that allows suppressors built in Texas to allow
Texans to not have to go through the federal govt. and pay for a "tax stamp". Anyone know anything about this?

 

[Axxe55]

A knowledgeable friend of mine told me there is something going on with legislation that allows suppressors built in Texas to allow
Texans to not have to go through the federal govt. and pay for a "tax stamp". Anyone know anything about this?

Kansas has a state law, that if the suppressor is manufactured in the state, is owned by a resident of Kansas, and stays within the state, it's legal in Kansas.

Well, the feds arrested two men on federal gun violation charges operating under that assumption. Didn't work out so well for them.

Ruling: Kansas gun law no defense to federal firearm charges

WICHITA, Kan. (AP) — An appeals court on Tuesday upheld the firearms convictions against two Kansas men who mistakenly believed that a Kansas law can shield from federal prosecution anyone owning firearms made, sold and kept in the state. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Shane Cox...

apnews.com

 

[benenglish]

China is just waiting until they are confident the US will not react militarily, then they will pounce.
Which could be in the next few years.

If you're right and I'm wrong (which is definitely possible), then the situation is more scary and depressing that I'm willing to face up to.

They may figure this administration is their best chance.

That's logical. Also, scary and depressing; see above.

Thanks for cheering me up.

 

[dapakattack]

Exactly. Even tho it is an infringement, it is also a tax on a constitutional right. Same as poll taxes, but yet poll taxes are not legal. Could be a legal precedence to eliminate it.

Just another thing that FDR f-ed up and got away with.

 

[DoubleDuty]

Exactly. Even tho it is an infringement, it is also a tax on a constitutional right. Same as poll taxes, but yet poll taxes are not legal. Could be a legal precedence to eliminate it.

Unless they get away with stacking the Supreme Court.

 

[mroper]

We should use their Strategy to fight the tax stamp rise. It is racist and it will disproportionately affect lower income folks .

 

[Renegade]

A knowledgeable friend of mine told me there is something going on with legislation that allows suppressors built in Texas to allow
Texans to not have to go through the federal govt. and pay for a "tax stamp". Anyone know anything about this?

There is no law Texas can pass that would bypass fed law wrt to NFA.

 

[DoubleDuty]

We should use their Strategy to fight the tax stamp rise. It is racist and it will disproportionately affect lower income folks .

They don't care this is about absolute control. We have career pols who want to keep their power till they die and will do any evil thing they can to keep it.

 

[toddnjoyce]

A knowledgeable friend of mine told me there is something going on with legislation that allows suppressors built in Texas to allow
Texans to not have to go through the federal govt. and pay for a "tax stamp". Anyone know anything about this?

Charlie, your knowledgable friends are higher than a kite. Kansas did this a few years ago and some dudes who tried it out wound up in a federal pound-you-in-the-àss prison. IIRC,
SCOTUS declined to hear the case without comment.