If you had to make a Compromise

Nope. All that does is reinforce the original intent, which was to price NFA weapons out of the hands of normal citizens.
Click to expand...
The problem is that with the scarcity all the guns are effectively higher priced than they would be with a new tax. A sten can be manufactured for how much? $500? Can you buy a sten for $4000 now? I think in looking around almost everything is at or just north of $5000. M16s are $12k+. Even with the larger transfer the price will drop in half for the most popular and get cheaper for everything. So, no, adjusting the transfer will not price people out if the registry is re-opened. It is an incremental improvement.

Now if you wanted to cry about how you $5000 sten just became worth $500 with a $3500 transfer fee I could care less. Anyway you reopen the registry the value of the guns will drop like a rock.
The additional benefit is that time and its friend inflation are then on our side. Without any legislative gains that $3500 becomes relatively less and less with inflation each year bringing the market closer to equilibrium.
 
Now if you wanted to cry about how you $5000 sten just became worth $500 with a $3500 transfer fee I could care less.
Click to expand...
Nope. I'd be crying because that $250 silencer is now $3750 instead of $450.
 
In this wonderful hypothetical, what would be the purpose of said "registration"? What will it be used for? What's the point in having one? Doesn't sounds like a compromise worth negotiating.

As much as I would love to go to walmart and grab an m240 and a cart full of silencers, I would much rather have the freedom to own and make guns that don't need to get registered, because I can't think of any "safety" reason of registration, only nefarious intentions. I could be willing to make that compromise if only F2F sales were part of the deal, I could do with a nics check when buying a gun, but only if that info is destroyed within 30 days.. and i would really only be for a nics check for every sale if that process could get turned over to the states because I have zero trust than a federal entity would destroy those records anyways.

I'm going with NO. Machineguns are leas important to me than privacy.
 
Quote:
Nope. All that does is reinforce the original intent, which was to price NFA weapons out of the hands of normal citizens.

The problem is that with the scarcity all the guns are effectively higher priced than they would be with a new tax. A sten can be manufactured for how much? $500? Can you buy a sten for $4000 now? I think in looking around almost everything is at or just north of $5000. M16s are $12k+. Even with the larger transfer the price will drop in half for the most popular and get cheaper for everything. So, no, adjusting the transfer will not price people out if the registry is re-opened. It is an incremental improvement.
Click to expand...

I think you are being a bit over simplistic, and ignoring some facts. There are essentially two categories of FA gun, those that are historical examples (meaning guns that are long out of production) and the rest, which are full auto versions of production guns.

You will always have a multi-tier price system, even if you repealed not just the Hughes amendment, but the entire NFA 34, it would still exist.

What would be different would be the number of dollars each level could command. Without NFA market distortions, your garage shop built Sten could be $500, yet an actual WWII Sten might be double, or more.

What's the going rate for as good condition WWII 1911A1?? Quite a bit more than a physically identical gun made new today.

And, even if you remove the huge market distortion caused by the Hughes Amendment, you still have the tax. A tax that is paid, EACH TIME the gun changes ownership. Your willing to "update" the tax to $3500? and you think that will somehow bring the price DOWN????

Remember that's $3500 each time. OK, you buy a $500 sten, and pay the tax. TO get your money back your sten is now $4000. You sell it to someone, who pays $4000 to you and $3500 to the Treasury. NOW, that sten is "worth" $7500. And to the next owner, $10,500, etc. And that's just the effect of the tax alone.

Yes, opening the registry will create a TEMORARY drop in the price of SOME guns, but it will very rapidly be replaced by the cost of the increased tax you would accept, putting these guns back outside the reach of regular folks pretty rapidly.
 
I would rather have all of America equivalent to at least present day Florida in terms of gun laws or better. I see suppressors eventually being removed from NFA in the next couple years as it continues to become a widely used hearing safety accessory.
 
I see suppressors eventually being removed from NFA in the next couple years as it continues to become a widely used hearing safety accessory.
Click to expand...
You need 51 votes in the Senate and a President who would sign off on that. We have neither at this time. It may be quite a while before we do.
 
Nope. I'd be crying because that $250 silencer is now $3750 instead of $450.
Click to expand...
If you'll re-read my post you will see removing silencers from NFA comes before updating the fee.

And, yes collectible arms do cost more than production arms. It is great that a WWII era 1911A1 costs 2-3 times a modern reproduction, BUT irrelevant. Many MANY more reproductions are sold each year than WWII era examples change hands.

That transfer fee does suck on the multiple transfers. I guess you won't be selling too often. Of course, you can always have a trustee changed for a few hours of lawyer time.
 
Just wanted to point out the OP's title, "If you have to make a compromise...'

If you have to compromise, you're not compromising. You are yielding to an ultimatum.

Which is exactly what the gun control folks consider a compromise to be.
 
If you look up Sen. Tom Coburn's (NRA A+, GOA A+) proposed background check legislation in 2013, you'll see a bill that covered FAR more transfers than Schumer-Toomey-Manchin. In fact, it covered virtually every single sale of a firearm anywhere in America.

For those who didn't know, Coburn was the original member (along with Schumer, Kirk, and Manchin) working on background check legislation after Newtown. When he couldn't come to an agreement with Schumer on "compromises", he stepped out and they recruited Toomey to be the new "Republican pro-gun" Senator backing the legislation Coburn didn't agree with. Looking at the differences between Coburn's bill and Schumer-Toomey-Manchin will give you a decent idea of what the anti-gun side is and isn't willing to negotiate on.

But here is the main point, in order to keep a 1933-style decentralized registration with paper forms, the anti-gun side was willing to give up true universal background checks - you know, the thing they claim was the main goal of the entire bill. You'll also notice that Schumer and friends were unwilling to accept minor reliefs of burden like allowing background checked parties to buy and sell interstate without an FFL involved - things like the OPs hypothetical are in the realm of unicorns and Pegasi.

And of course, because we rarely enforce the existing law on background checks (62 prosecutions out of 4,732 investigations out of 72,000 denials in 2010), the shootings will continue because a felon can literally just keep trying until he gets lucky (assuming said felon has some particular urge to buy a weapon through an FFL and not through the black market). So be prepared for them to come back with their hands out after the grand UBC comromise fails to stop the next shooting (which by the way the VA Tech shooter, Aurora shooter, Washington Navy Yard shooter, Trainwreck shooter, Giffords shooter, and a few others all passed their background check when they purchased the firearm they used).

And when I say "come back with their hands out", I don't mean a decade later. If you look at past history, they will file a bill in the very next session of Congress asking for more and the next time they find a good press opportunity, they'll make a huge Newtown-like push. You'll be lucky if the so-called compromise even gets you two years of peace.

You know what has worked? Fighting back.
 
No. I will not bargain with people who wish to take gun owners rights away. I do not trust them and would never make a deal with them. They are the enemies of freedom.
 
Talking heads !!!

Anytime a politician or news "Talking head" states;

I have canvassed hunters and gun enthusiasts, in my state and they are in support of this proposal and would support such a law.
Click to expand...

You know that they are not telling the truth and in violation of the oath they took, to support our Constitution. As a veteran, I took the same oath of which includes accepting the president as our commander in chief. Lots of luck with that part. ...... :(

Be Safe !!!
 
They have one agenda, and they're going to do what it takes to make it happen. Do not expect honesty or fair dealing with them.
Click to expand...
Tom you must not have caught my next point. The have already restructured their organization how many times? They could just do it again and effectively negate any commitments they have made. They get almost all of their money from one source. They don't have any investment in infrastructure for fundraising like the pro-gun groups.

I've met plenty of hunters and self-proclaimed enthusiasts who are supportive of some restrictions. I don't doubt democrats contacting people registered with their offices as supporters hear that UBC and such are ok.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top