Brace Ban

[jamil]

There is more to the NFA to consider than just a $200.00 tax. One has to keep the item available for inspection by ATF and one needs permission to take the item out of state. There may be other restrictions of which I'm not aware.

I think the $200 tax stamp is enough to consider on its own, let alone the rest of it. The tax stamp limits the market to those who can afford an extra $200. At its inception it definitely did make those items available to privileged people. Inflation has made that less of a factor. But that does not rescue the logic of claiming that it’s okay because it’s not that much. It’s still enough to make it cost prohibitive for a lot of people.

 

[Leadeye]

I think the $200 tax stamp is enough to consider on its own, let alone the rest of it. The tax stamp limits the market to those who can afford an extra $200. At its inception it definitely did make those items available to privileged people. Inflation has made that less of a factor. But that does not rescue the logic of claiming that it’s okay because it’s not that much. It’s still enough to make it cost prohibitive for a lot of people.

Absolutely, and since the government didn't just reset the tax on machine guns it tells you everything about our future monetary policy. They won't make that mistake again.

 

[jamil]

You want to buy a FA M16? The hurdles are a couple of fingerprint cards and a $200 tax stamp. Same thing for your "spanky new" M4 with a fun switch, although I'm sure you can't by a NEW M4 with a fun switch without being an FFL/SOT, but good on ya. Want to buy a suppressor? If you can buy a "spanky new" M4, pretty sure you can afford a can to go with it.

Again - the personal attack. I'm not rich, but I am practical, and when I know I want to buy a new suppressor, I figure in the $200 inconvenience tax to the cost of said can.

What personal attack? I’m in a pretty well paying career. The $200 tax stamp isn’t overly burdensome for me. I’m privileged that way. That extra $200 is enough to put something like owning a can out of their reach. You and I are privileged. If you think that’s a personal attack, maybe the fault isn’t mine. Not every disagreement is a personal attack. Jeez, calm the **** down dude.

 

[Aszerigan]

It’s still enough to make it cost prohibitive for a lot of people.

I'm not of the privileged people, but no, it doesn't. If you can afford $75 for a brace, you can make your SBR legal. You don't want to pay it out of principal, but you can.

 

[Gluemanz28]

What on earth could you think “privileged” means? It doesn’t mean they’re meanies. It means they have the means to own something that is beyond the means of ordinary people. That is the point. The NFA creates a new class of privilege. Those who have the resources to own NFA items and those who don’t. The insistence that the the NFA puts no burden on ownership denies the this reality. It most certainly does.

To me “Privileged” is a buzz word to poke someone.
You might not see it or mean it that way but I find it offensive.

 

[Aszerigan]

If you think NFA isn’t burdensome, you might be privileged.

Not every disagreement is a personal attack. Jeez, calm the **** down dude.

Huh... ok, then. Perhaps you should make your points by fact rather than careless name calling.

 

[Route 45]

Huh... ok, then. Perhaps you should make your points by fact rather than careless name calling.

Here's a fact.

People who blindly followed laws just because they were laws did not create our republic.

 

[DadSmith]

Can you imagine the outcry if other guaranteed rights in the constitution came with a $200 tax and a long background check to use those rights?
That sure would put a damper on free exercise of religion and freedom Of expression. How about free speech or to protest. Let's do $200 tax stamps and lengthy background checks so you can protest, use your favorite social media etc. If its okay for one right why not strap them all with it.

 

[jamil]

To me “Privileged” is a buzz word to poke someone.
You might not see it or mean it that way but I find it offensive.

Maybe the fault is not mine. I used a word for its literal meaning. You can be offended if you want, but you don’t have to. You could take it literally too. Or, if you’re unsure about the meaning, because “privilege” is being thrown about these days in a negative way, you could ask what I meant by it before assuming I meant the worst.

 

[jamil]

I'm not of the privileged people, but no, it doesn't. If you can afford $75 for a brace, you can make your SBR legal. You don't want to pay it out of principal, but you can.

That’s just an assumption. Everyone has a top price, beyond which they either can’t justify or can’t afford. If it comes down to it, what must they give up to pay the extra cost? That’s not your call to say everyone should regard expenses as you do.

 

[johny5]

Can you imagine the outcry if other guaranteed rights in the constitution came with a $200 tax and a long background check to use those rights?
That sure would put a damper on free exercise of religion and freedom Of expression. How about free speech or to protest. Let's do $200 tax stamps and lengthy background checks so you can protest, use your favorite social media etc. If its okay for one right why not strap them all with it.

The rationale sorta goes like this:

• Requiring an ID (entirely funded by taxpayers) for the purposes of ensuring the veracity of the electorate = poll tax.
• Requiring $200 tax stamp to exercise 2A rights = "minor inconvenience"

And, before anyone pulls the 'personal attack' card, I know that this has not been explicitly stated in this thread, but it is implicit in the argument being made.

 

[jamil]

Can you imagine the outcry if other guaranteed rights in the constitution came with a $200 tax and a long background check to use those rights?
That sure would put a damper on free exercise of religion and freedom Of expression. How about free speech or to protest. Let's do $200 tax stamps and lengthy background checks so you can protest, use your favorite social media etc. If its okay for one right why not strap them all with it.

If the argument is logical for that right, it’s logical for any right. Ya. Let’s see the rioting when they start charging $200 per person for the right to protest.

 

[snorko]

The ATF is (formerly a tax collection, now a) law enforcement agency. It is not a legislative body. I am following the law if i pay a $200 tax, go through the 6-12 month process of getting a stamp, all to manufacture or purchase an SBR. I am also following the law if I buy a pistol, install a brace on it, and shoot away. I am not avoiding any law as has been espoused above. I am following the law.

As the choir knows, the problem is this law enforcement agency is creating law. Without consent, without exposure to public opinion, let alone WITHOUT THE POWER TO DO SO. Aszerigan, would you happily pay the fine if a state trooper gave you a speeding ticket for going 65 mph on the interstate, if he told you he decided the limit is 50 and not 70? This is exactly what the ATF is doing. Congress passed and the president signed the NFA into law. The ATF is capriciously interpreting and reinterpreting the laws to their whim.

It is not an economics argument about a $200 tax. But your opinion that "if you can afford $75 for a brace you can afford $200 for a stamp" is specious and not reflective of all costs. What about my time spent getting fingerprints, photos and forms. What about the substantial fees many class III dealers, like yourself, charge for these transfers. and actuall costs can be a lot different, the world consists of more than a simple AR upper swap.

I wanted a krinkov style sbr. I bought an Arsenal 107UR, about $1,200 after taxes and shipping. I then spent the $200 applying for permission to convert it. After many months, I then paid a gunsmith about $400-$450 to do the work. So roughly $1,800 total.
I also have a Mini Draco with a folding brace. Total cost of that was around $600. They are almost identical in dimensions and function. So economically it can be a lot for a range toy.

 

[Gluemanz28]

Maybe the fault is not mine. I used a word for its literal meaning. You can be offended if you want, but you don’t have to. You could take it literally too. Or, if you’re unsure about the meaning, because “privilege” is being thrown about these days in a negative way, you could ask what I meant by it before assuming I meant the worst.

When I said maybe you didn’t see it or mean it that way was giving you the benefit of the doubt, no fault intended. I was literally giving my opinion of the buzz word “Privileged”.

I wasn’t offended because you never said anything about me being “Privileged”.

 

[johny5]

Aszerigan...What about the substantial fees many class III dealers, like yourself, charge for these transfers.

Ok - this is beginning to make more sense now...I'm not a big Upton Sinclair fan, but I think the following makes sense here.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

 

[Leadeye]

I don't agree with the idea of the ATF making laws through interpretation. The problem is that these things get sorted out in a court case and you have to be careful about what you are doing when you drag the government into court. Gun collecting isn't something that's going to be ginned up as a public crusade. An old acquaintance and fellow dealer comes to mind who took the ATF to court and lost every time, finally losing big on an importation issue and ended up spending time in prison. I remember talking to him at the OGCA meeting thinking he was risking a lot, but he felt sure he would win.

 

[jamil]

The ATF is (formerly a tax collection, now a) law enforcement agency. It is not a legislative body. I am following the law if i pay a $200 tax, go through the 6-12 month process of getting a stamp, all to manufacture or purchase an SBR. I am also following the law if I buy a pistol, install a brace on it, and shoot away. I am not avoiding any law as has been espoused above. I am following the law.

As the choir knows, the problem is this law enforcement agency is creating law. Without consent, without exposure to public opinion, let alone WITHOUT THE POWER TO DO SO. Aszerigan, would you happily pay the fine if a state trooper gave you a speeding ticket for going 65 mph on the interstate, if he told you he decided the limit is 50 and not 70? This is exactly what the ATF is doing. Congress passed and the president signed the NFA into law. The ATF is capriciously interpreting and reinterpreting the laws to their whim.

It is not an economics argument about a $200 tax. But your opinion that "if you can afford $75 for a brace you can afford $200 for a stamp" is specious and not reflective of all costs. What about my time spent getting fingerprints, photos and forms. What about the substantial fees many class III dealers, like yourself, charge for these transfers. and actuall costs can be a lot different, the world consists of more than a simple AR upper swap.

I wanted a krinkov style sbr. I bought an Arsenal 107UR, about $1,200 after taxes and shipping. I then spent the $200 applying for permission to convert it. After many months, I then paid a gunsmith about $400-$450 to do the work. So roughly $1,800 total.
I also have a Mini Draco with a folding brace. Total cost of that was around $600. They are almost identical in dimensions and function. So economically it can be a lot for a range toy.

Wait. He’s a class III dealer? Okay. That explains some things.

 

[jamil]

When I said maybe you didn’t see it or mean it that way was giving you the benefit of the doubt, no fault intended. I was literally giving my opinion of the buzz word “Privileged”.

I wasn’t offended because you never said anything about me being “Privileged”.

You said “privilege” is offensive to you, buzzword and all. When someone uses that term and you’re offended by that, maybe you’re needlessly offended. That was my point.

 

[BE Mike]

Uh..... no, they didn't, and no they don't. Prove this with actual factual examples.

I don't think that there have been any tactical raids on compounds since Waco. The officers who lost their lives and were injured in the ill prepared raid on Waco were political pawns of the Clinton administration. My opinion is the head of ATF at the time was trying to make a big splash to increase his stature. The Treasury Dept. was looking to be the lead agency in what was to become U.S. Customs and Border Protection. They succeeded in absorbing Immigration Inspections and the U.S. Border Patrol. The Obama administration also used ATF to further their political ideals with the failed "Fast and Furious" debacle that contributed to Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry's murder. Maybe at your level, when ATF comes to look over your records and count firearms, it doesn't seem like anything changes with the changes of administrations.

 

[snorko]

Wait. He’s a class III dealer? Okay. That explains some things.

I want to be clear I was not implying anything onerous about Aszerigan. While the fees are significant to those paying them, no SOT or class III holder is getting rich off the fees paid. They are minor compared to the cost of their license, insurance red tape, etc. .