SBR regs... whats the point?

D

Dashunde

New member
Aside from collecting an extra "tax", what is the point of the SBR category since the advent of rifles like the IWI Tavor/BullPup and others that manage to get a 16+ inch barrel inside of a package about the same overall length as a traditional SBR?

Forgive me doing nearly zero research on it, just got to thinking about the whole SBR concept while checking out the AR pistol "brace" thing... it seems pointless to split barrel length hairs with options like the Tavor around, no?

Is the tax stamp even worth the enforcement & processing hassle of dealing with the SBR category?
 
I thought it was overall length not barrel length. Its usually just easier to reduce length thru barrel than any other method
 
It's both. <16" barrel or <26" gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-barreled_rifle

They needed to be seen as doing something about crime, so (among other things) they created a sub-category [of rifles], used PR to make people afraid of it, passed a law restricting it, and claimed victory. Isn't that a common political formula?

Is the tax stamp even worth the enforcement & processing hassle of dealing with the SBR category?
Click to expand...

Maybe not now, although it might have been worth it originally, because the $200 tax has remained while inflation marches on.

ATF's revenue years ago was dominated by alcohol and tobacco tax collection. Their gun-related taxes and activites, taken alone, would have them running slim margins or even deficits, given that they spend disproportionately on gun-related activities. I haven't looked at their accounting in this decade.

I remember, about a decade ago, they got a beautiful new HQ building. There were some problems because some penny pinchers didn't appreciate all the hard work ATF bureaucrats do to merit $65k conference tables and such. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/05/AR2006020501073.html I don't remember what ultimately happened with any of that... some talk about shifting agencies around such that it wouldn't be an ATF HQ per se, but it's listed as their HQ so I guess that was just talk.

Getting back to the point... their tax revenue from guns is marginal. They play up guns and gun enforcement to get PR, but it's not their bread and butter. I don't think they care whether the Title 2 taxes cover their costs.
 
Forgive me doing nearly zero research on it,
Click to expand...

ok, this time. But, really when you bring it up, you should do a little research on the subject. Doesn't have to be much.;) Congrats on being a big enough person to admit it, though.

The NFA (National Firearms Act) of 1934 created the mess. Restrictions on machineguns, short barrel firearms, and silencers. Sold to the public as a tool to use against the gangsters, some of us believe it was simply a means to justify keeping T-men employed after the repeal of Prohibition. And, at the time, Federal gun control was a virgin field.

The short barrel firearms part was primarily aimed at sawed off shotguns. But it also covered short barrel rifles and stocked pistols. They set an arbitrary standard for barrel length and overall length, both of which had to be met, or the firearm was restricted and taxed under the NFA.

it may not make sense to you or me, but they are deadly serious about it. Google Randy Weaver /Ruby Ridge for some idea. (and after you see what the net says, talk to some other people for the whole truth.)
 
Maybe not now, although it might have been worth it originally, because the $200 tax has remained while inflation marches on.
Click to expand...
In 1934 dollars, that was a couple months' pay for the average person. It was the worst year of the Great Depression, and it was known that few people could afford it. The idea was that it would generate some tax revenue, but it would also act like a ban without actually being a ban.

(An actual ban probably wouldn't have been considered constitutional back then.)

I don't think they care whether the Title 2 taxes cover their costs.
Click to expand...
It's hard to say. Most of the legwork and administration is passed off to the people paying the taxes. Manufacturers report the Title 2 firearms they produce. The ATF just needs someone to type the relevant information into the NFRTR. When it ships to a dealer, the manufacturer does the paperwork, and again, the ATF just needs someone to update the record.

When the firearm is purchased, the dealer and buyer do the paperwork and pay the tax. Essentially, all the ATF does is verify that the numbers are straight and cash the check. If done with the least bit of efficiency, it should be profitable.

I don't remember what ultimately happened with any of that... some talk about shifting agencies around such that it wouldn't be an ATF HQ per se, but it's listed as their HQ so I guess that was just talk.
Click to expand...
It ended up being just talk. The only change was that Congress refused to confirm a permanent director. That changed last year with the confirmation of B. Todd Jones.

There's a good history of the whole shebang here [pdf].
 
Atf processed some 80,000+ forms last year, the vast majority of them worth $200 each.
Don't think they don't make money with this.
But yes, in 1934, this was essentially a ban, monetarily.
And, at the time, there weren't "bullpup" rifles around to make it seem pointless.
Also, bullpup rifles handle much differently than standard rifles do. For some, this is an issue.
 
Are there stats somewhere on how many forms they processed early on? The first decade of the NFA particularly, but every year since the NFA would be interesting.

Taking a step back, though... the ATF doesn't fund their Title 2 database via a fund or endowment, do they? They fund it directly from collected revenue, don't they? If nobody sent in Title 2 tax forms one year, they'd have to get the money from other revenue?

Any database has ongoing costs, and a one-time fee for an entry into a database with an indefinite maintenance time-horizon is not fiscally sound. A system structured like that is a ponzi scheme if it continues long enough.
 
I would lay odds they have records for every year from the beginning.
All it would take is a request of how many for a given year, every year, whatever. It's not exactly a national secret.
I would think it funds itself, but we are talking the federal government here, so who knows exactly how it works.
 
I have often heard of how the money collected from the inheritance tax (death tax) which, at certain levels takes the majority of the estate (50%, 70%? higher?) doesn't even pay for the cost of administering it.

They keep it, losing money on it, because of the effect the tax has on us, as individuals.

There are taxes (fees, permits, tarrifs, etc., call them anything you want, its still a tax) that don't pay for themselves. And taxes that do, barely, and others that make enough "proft" for the govt to run on.

The government seems quite happy to lose money, so long as they can take money away from us, to create the desired effect on what we buy or spend.

Some taxes are to raise money. Others are just for punishing undesirable behavior and attitudes, and what is "undesirable" varies with the political climate. Making money on the deal is nice, but irrelevant to their intent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top