Unfortunately I'm afraid reducing the tax to zero makes it super easy for gun grabbers in the future to make the tax 25k.
I see two paths-
1. They'll somehow defend it as a zero dollar tax
2. It goes to court because it's a defacto registry.
Or some combination of both.
Thankfully Chevron Deference is shut down. Now someone just needs to do something about it.
Well, we know the NRA wont do jack diddly.
FPC is our best bet right now... unless bills get passed.
Honestly, while I don't like the tax, what I REALLY don't like is the registration. Specifically, I don't like having to 1.) Ask permission to acquire and then 2.) at least partially sign away my 4th amendment right in order to fully exercise my 2A rights. While the ATF is not "allowed" to have a gun registry, I highly doubt that any judge would ever uphold that with regards to Class III items. In my humble (and absolutely worthless) opinion, our BEST option is to leave the tax and then argue in court that a $200 tax on something that otherwise only costs $200-$600 (at least for the budget friendly options) is unconstitutional and has been since 1934 while also making the argument that the entire purpose of the 1938 Federal Firearms Act was to neuter the publics access to the exact types of "Arms" that the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect and for the exact reason(s) that the founding fathers put it into writing to begin with. It's sole purpose was and is to ensure that the ordinary citizen can not have access to "Arms" that would put them on level a level playing field with employees of the various government agencies. The federal government derived the authority to do this through its authority to regulate interstate commerce. In order to claim they were merely regulating commerce, they implemented the $200 tax stamp (which would be the equivalent of roughly $4,500 today). SCOTUS has consistently ruled that a tax can not be used as a means of preventing access to goods or services. Even at only $200 in today's economy, it hinders access. If it were +$4,500, it would be impossible for a sane person to logically defend the stamp, but again, the cost of the stamp is not the issue. The issue is that the federal government has been overstepping its authority (to regulate interstate commerce) and in doing so it has directly violated the exact purpose of the 2nd amendment.
Southern Democrats like Wayne LaPierre???If Michael Collins Piper were still alive I would ask him to find out who infiltrated the NRA. There's a story there.
“Making” is an interesting choice of a word… just seems out of place.
Will suppressors be able to be sold over the counter without any sort of paperwork, like buying a set of rings or a pic. rail?
Regards
Rick
The $200 tax on firearms suppressors was established in 1934 as part of the National Firearms Act (NFA).Taxes, in my opinion, should be reasonable. $200 is as much as 20-25% depending on the model. In some cases even more. That isn’t reasonable….
As an accessory, they shouldn’t be taxed any more than any other commercially sold item, nor should they be even classified the way they are.
They should work to end the $200 tax. Flat tax them on the federal level at 3%, remove them from the NFA, and sell them in front of the counter, not behind it, like every other commercially produced accessory.