Sen. Feinstien (Calif) to intro gun control bill

Some are afraid of not being armed and a lot of people are afraid of armed criminals, some think we'd be safer with no guns. Okay, here is an idea.

We have national gun licenses, shall issue on completion of a class and background check. That would let you own all non-semi auto firearms. Then if you take a longer safety, proficiency, mental health class/interview you can be issued an M4, but no other full autos, and also own any semi-autos you want, with up to a 30 round magazine, no big 100 rounders any more. Then they could have classes where like say a three man team could get a surplus M60 and other programs like that.

CCW will also be that national license/permit, but you have to go through an intensive class and be qualified to a minimum level of proficiency and knowledge of self defense laws.

The penalties for committing a crime with a gun, stealing a gun, black marketing, etc will be harsh, but not draconian. Just bad enough to make most sane people think twice.

That way all the legal guns will be accounted for, all of them will be secure, unless they are being carried, all the legal carriers will be vetted, we'll have a great national force of non-felons armed with M4s.

Or, we could not do anything, save billions and focus on something actually helpful.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • The_Truth.jpg
    The_Truth.jpg
    99.5 KB · Views: 170
NFA-tax-stamp.jpg

NAF is not a tax. It's a registration fee. Just like the USE tax the Washington State Govt. tries to screw me over with isn't a sales tax. They can call it whatever they want, if they call it the right thing, then it's "ok"
Click to expand...
Actually, the NFA "fee" is a TAX and intentionally so... The "act" was passed to thwart the gangsters from using machine guns and other such arms in crime...

if caught with one that didn't have a "tax stamp" assigned than you faced something they knew they could win in court with... and federal at that... The only crime many gangsters were charged with and lost in court... TAX EVASION...

And at $200 per gun... only the wealthy could afford to own them...

Brent
 
Somehow I don't think that is going to work. I don't believe that tens of millions of people are going to run out and register their guns, provide photo ID fingerprints and whatnot.
Click to expand...
I shudder to think what the cost of such a program would be, and how many decades it would take to process all the paperwork.

If there's to be a national buyback, consider the crippling tax burden. These are exactly the provisions I want kept in any proposed bill, as they will utterly cripple its chances of passage.
 
I agree with others who feel that Feinstein's bill has been drawn very broadly to provide portions to bargain away for the main thrust, AWB, restricted magazine capacity and an end to the so-called "gun show" loophole ... I also agree that it's almost impossible to imagine what would be involved in the registration portion ... I'm also hoping that we can count on the House to provide a roadblock to this miserable excuse for a law ... however ... I don't think we'd be wise to discount the national emotion over this issue in the wake of Newtown .. the real problem, in my eyes, is the certainty that another mass shooting will happen again, and soon ... some psycho copycat is probably plotting one even now ... if that happens even the staunchest NRA supporter in Congress will lose their backbone when they're deluged with calls from the home front telling them they have to vote for a Feinstein-type law or start looking for an honest job ... we have a very bumpy road ahead; I'm stocking up on ammo now and looking at a few nice revolvers and a lever action carbine ... we have to realize that the 2A is under serious attack and may not survive as we have known it, especially if Obama gets to name a Scotus justice or two ...
 
Isn't this essentially trying to tax them out of existence? If they all become NFA, isn't there like a $200 fee for each gun? I would have to get rid of 1/2 my collection, there's no way I could afford to pay $200 for each gun that falls in there. I don't want to even think of the bill for the bigger collectors...
Click to expand...

Ah, but that was always the point of the NFA. I suspect that even in the midst of the Great Depression and New Deal, the drafters of the NFA knew that they'd be on shaky Constitutional ground with an outright ban, so instead they chose to regulate so heavily as to create a de facto ban. As bad as $200 per gun sounds in today's dollars, it would have been a small fortune in 1934 dollars (the amount has not changed). Adjusted for inflation, $200 in 1934 would be roughly equivalent to $3,300 in 2011.
 
Webleymkv said:
Ah, but that was always the point of the NFA. I suspect that even in the midst of the Great Depression and New Deal, the drafters of the NFA knew that they'd be on shaky Constitutional ground with an outright ban, so instead they chose to regulate so heavily as to create a de facto ban. As bad as $200 per gun sounds in today's dollars, it would have been a small fortune in 1934 dollars (the amount has not changed). Adjusted for inflation, $200 in 1934 would be roughly equivalent to $3,300 in 2011.
Click to expand...

Legislator used to discuss the constitutionality of laws quite frequently.

From the National Firearms Act hearings before the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, April 16, 1934:

page 13
Mr. McClintic (D-OK) I would like to ask just one question. I am very much interested in this subject. What in your opinion would be the constitutionality of a provision added to this bill which would require registration, on the part of those who now own the type or class of weapons that are included in this bill?
Attorney General Cummings We were afraid of that, sir.
Mr. McClintic (D-OK) Afraid it would conflict with State laws?
Attorney General Cummings I am afraid it would be unconstitutional.

page 19
Mr. Lewis (D-MD) I hope the courts will find no doubt on a subject like this, General; but I was curious to know how we escaped that provision in the Constitution (the Second Amendment).
Attorney General Cummings Oh, we did not attempt to escape it. We are dealing with another power, namely, the power of taxation, and of regulation under the inter-state commerce clause. You see, if we made a statute absolutely forbidding any human being to have a machine gun, you might say there is some constitutional question involved. But when you say "We will tax the machine gun" and when you say that "the absence of a license showing payment of the tax has been made indicates that a crime has been perpetrated", you are easily within the law.
Click to expand...

And the legislators well fully aware that the NFA tax would be essentially confiscatory.

page 12
Mr. Cooper (D-TN) In that connection, would you be prepared to give us some information as to the average cost of one of these machine guns?
Attorney General Cummings The cost now is about $200.
Mr. Cooper (D-TN) That is, delivered to the purchaser?
Attorney General Cummings Yes, sir.
Mr. Cooper (D-TN) Then the proposed tax of $200 --
Attorney General Cummings Would be about a 100-percent tax.
Mr. Cooper (D-TN) About a 100-percent tax?
Attorney General Cummings Yes, sir.
Click to expand...
 
I shudder to think what the cost of such a program would be, and how many decades it would take to process all the paperwork.
Click to expand...

You know that is a really good point. They should let her take her bill to the floor totally unmodified or mitigated. If it is indigestible it will die a quick death. "Reasonable" restrictions would be much more onerous.
 
One aspect of Feinstein's proposal seems totally unworkable: can you imagine several million "assault weapons" added to the NFA registry and the ATF then trying to process approvals for interstate transportation of those guns.
 
Ok - the NFA stamp is a tax stamp and it's presently $200.00

My big question is, who sets that price and how high can it be set?

I'm asking that as a smoker that's paying roughly $38.00 tax on a $2.00 item.
 
Hal, I am worried they would say... "OOPS we never adjusted that tax for inflation etc. so it is now $4,000 for each item..."

Brent
 
I worried that nicotine addiction is going to kill Hal, but I'm not in favor of passing laws to force him to quit.
 
Unlike any other item of personal property "arms" are a protected item under the Bill of Rights. To my mind this means "arms" in common use must stay at a tax rate that allows the to continue to be in common use.. Also the fingerprinting, photographing and whatever else they may add places a undo burden on the right.

I am not a lawyer and I know I'm idealistic but this legislation is well beyond the bounds of sanity IMHO.
 
Existing ARs - including M1 carbines - grandfathered, registered, taxed. Upon death of owner have to be surrendered to the government and destroyed.

Sounds a lot like confiscation to me.
 
We've been doing pretty good on the legal front lately. Maybe this will all lead to a monumental decision, in which for example the M4 is recognized as the modern equivalent of the muskets of colonial times. Its unlikely, but its always good for a laugh when their plans backfire on them. :)
 
"OOPS we never adjusted that tax for inflation etc. so it is now $4,000 for each item..."
Click to expand...
That's my very thought...who "they" are and just how much authority "they" have to set and/or raise the tax.
 
Ok - the NFA stamp is a tax stamp and it's presently $200.00... My big question is, who sets that price and how high can it be set?
Click to expand...
AFAIK the $200 amount was fixed by statute in 1934, and the statute does not provide any regulatory mechanism for adjusting the tax, other than subsequent action by Congress.

IOW there is no upper limit, and as pointed out in gc70's post, the $200 amount was originally intended to be confiscatory. One interesting historical footnote is that the NFA reportedly prompted gun stores to dump affected inventory at huge losses before the law went into effect, to avoid being stuck with essentially unsaleable items and having to comply with the new mandates. (IIRC this was referenced in the Heller decision of all places!)
"OOPS we never adjusted that tax for inflation etc. so it is now $4,000 for each item..."
Click to expand...
FWIW according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, $200 in 1934 dollars is equal to $3,436 in 2012 dollars.

This is one of the fundamental reasons why the NFA is the third rail of American gun politics.
 
Well, after Kay Bailey H. in TX started to babble about clips and AWs - blah, blah - I wrote to her to point out the fallacies of such babble.

Her (computer) reply:

Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding gun control legislation. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.
While we all support the strongest measures to ensure that guns do not end up in the wrong hands, I believe that one of the most powerful deterrents we have is the consistent, full enforcement of the numerous laws that already address many aspects of the problem. For instance, there are more than a dozen laws at the state and federal level that deal with the use, carrying, ownership, or trafficking of guns, and we must prosecute without qualification those who violate these laws.
Rather than usurping the rights of law-abiding citizens, I believe we should vigorously prosecute those who use guns to commit crimes. I have worked to enact federal anti-crime legislation that imposes tough minimum sentences on those convicted of using firearms to commit crimes, prevents early parole for violent criminals, and provides federal funds to build new prisons and fund local law enforcement. I will continue to support legislation that fights crime and upholds our Second Amendment rights.
On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the individual right to keep and bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller. I submitted an amicus brief to the Court in support of affirming the District of Columbia's gun ban as unconstitutional, and was joined by 55 Senators, 250 House members, and the Vice President of the United States. This historic decision will affect gun laws throughout the country that try to unjustly undermine our rights under the Second Amendment.

I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue of concern to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator
Click to expand...

Get a better program and at least enter my name. I'm glad the computer supports gun rights but she's gone anyway.
 
Alabama said:
I shudder to think what the cost of such a program would be, and how many decades it would take to process all the paperwork.
Click to expand...
You know that is a really good point. They should let her take her bill to the floor totally unmodified or mitigated. If it is indigestible it will die a quick death. "Reasonable" restrictions would be much more onerous.
Click to expand...
I fear that, with emotions running as high as they are, this will be another "we have to pass the bill so that we can find out what's in it" situations.
 
I don't think Kay Bailey's computer has been updated to address her new political realities. ;)

As I said in the other (closed) KBH thread, I think she may be preparing to retire into an elder stateswoman role, but it's subsequently occurred to me that she may be preparing to run for Governor after switching parties! How ironic it would be to have an incumbent who switched parties to increase his chances, facing off against a challenger who switched parties to increase her chances... ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top