Thanks for the warning, Mr. Vickers.
I’d also like to thank you Mr. Vickers.
I don’t like it but it this happened we could still buy new AR’s etc just with a tax stamp or am I mistaken and will it be like the 86 man on full autos.
Pat
What would this mean for those of us who have sold AR 15’s privately in states where that is legal ?
Are we to pay tax stamps on every AR 15 we have ever sold ?
What would this mean for those of us that live in states that don’t allow NFA items?
You can’t make a law retro active. So what you did before is fine.
pat
Its my understanding that the 4473 is destroyed after so many years(if I’m wrong, sorry). So, if NFA registration happens, then your AR’s are on an “official” list. When the Government comes looking to confiscate them, you better have them. Or is that too off base?
This is a scary time indeed.
I am not putting on my foil hat just yet, but I do believe that anything can happen.
Career politicians - who are only looking out for themselves, and to hell with their constituents .
Political corruption is SOP.
And our deep seated tradition of believing anything the media puts forth as fact.
The best we can hope for is a political stalemate.
If we do our very best and still loose, pray that the next choice of evils to enter the White House can fix/repeal any damage done during the next 4 years.
Larry,
FWIW- I heard the exact same thing you did as well from another source within the industry. This was shortly after the incident in Colorado. Some legal minds feel the same as what you stated, that he will push the limits and then allow it go to legal battles.
Thanks LAV! Good gouge.
What would that do to the size and scope of the BATFE? How could they cope with millions of registrations without being the size of the IRS?
Maybe this is a negotiation ploy to get the House to go along with a ban? Threaten them with a doomsday for gun voters? The Chicago way…
Well, whatever it is, Roberts will go along with it. Whatever they dug up on him to strong-arm him into agreeing with the “Obamacare tax decision” will be back.
bc
All the folks that didn’t vote for Romney because he wasn’t perfect enough can thank themselves when they are turnig over their guns or tax forms.
Larry
Are you going to use any of this on the show? Your in a position to reach a lot of uninformed people. Thank you for the info passing it on. Additionally thanks to the rest of you for legal definitions.
I have a feeling he’ll go after it as fast as he can. Cost, the number of examiners & transfer times will no doubt be brought up, giving him the chance he needs to get the things he wants out of the budget cuts to fund hiring new folks at NFA Branch. Our side will cave, he’ll get what he wants on both fronts. If this goes down, I doubt the tax will increase just yet in order to sell it, but you bet your ass in a year or 2 it will “adjust with inflation”.
Guys,
Do all you can, as the wolf is at the door.
You mean after he appoints another UberLib to the SCOTUS?
BTW he’s just been named Person of the Year by TIME for transforming America.
With all due respect, take a wild guess.
Worked out for the Administration in the health care battle, so I’m sure they are emboldened by that plus their feeling of invincibility post-election.
I think you guys are missing the real point of an NFA grab. It is most definately illegal and would get turned down- but you make someone goto court and fight to put these ‘kid killing battlefield rifles’ back on our streets. The NRA will do it, of course, but the left will use that to demonize them even further and split them from the FUDDs.
It’s not about actually getting them on the NFA list, it is all about making your opponent look more fringe.
Why are they even pushing an AWB now? Because they know it will make Republicans in swing districts in the house make a vote that will cost them soccer moms. Dems don’t care about guns, its all about the ads they can run in two years about how your congressman gave guns to crazys and killed your kid.
The NFA makes some sense as a progession from where we are, but legally it is pretty tough. I’d look more for something in the safety realm, although there are restrictions there on what they can do with guns, I could see some kind of end run like ‘workplace lead (Pb)’ restriction. Lead in bullets fired in buildings causes elevated lead levels.
Christmas then New Years, the fiscal cliff and who knows what between now and the new year. The Republicans need to get to the bottom of the Bhenghazi stuff.
Reps need an ‘active’ solution ie security and armed teachers to the passive dems plan of ‘passive’ laws that don’t actually stop killers.
Which was done by designating it as a destructive device. Although we may disagree with that designation, apparently we were in the minority since there was relatively little resistance. I suspect that he would meet much more resistance if he tried to designate semiauto rifles as destructive devices.
Absolutely agree!!!
Unimaginable :mad:
Given that some House Republicans who ran on ‘protecting the Second Amendment’ are saying things like ‘I don’t remember the last time I went deer hunting and had more than three rounds in my clip (sic)’, I don’t believe for an instant that the man who signed an AWB would not try to work with the man who wants to sign an AWB to try to control ‘assault weapons’.
In any case, do we have anything other than the PotUS studying adding ‘assault weapons’ to the NFA? Not saying he wouldn’t want to try it. I mean it’s like having a plan to attack Syria - doesn’t mean it’s going to happen, just means that we’re thinking about it. So I wouldn’t panic… yet.