Beginning of the end of 1986 ban?

[reconbob]

    The lead story on Gunsamerica.com is that the United States District Court for Kansas ruled that the 18 U.S.C. 922 ban on machine guns is unconstitutional. Obviously a long way to go, appeals, etc. but could this actually be the beginning of the end of the 1986 ban? 
 

Bob

Edited August 30 by reconbob

[Merry Ploughboy]

We could only hope.  I expect that the ruling will get squashed at the Appellate Court level pretty quickly.  It will be like Dorothy said, "Toto, we're not in Kansas anymore."

MHO, YMMV, etc.

[Got Uzi]

This is being discussed in one of the other sub forums here and on Sturm. No need to bring it up again….little late to the “breaking news” party.

https://www.sturmgewehr.com/forums/index.php?/topic/37301-anyone-hear-about-this-ruling-mg-ban-is-unconstitutional-in-kansas/#comment-130831
 

 

[colt21a]

NOTHING BURGER..move on, discuss labor day pronto pups.

or...

[bug]

19 minutes ago, colt21a said:

NOTHING BURGER..move on, discuss labor day pronto pups.

or...

Ahh yes. Gunsmoke's kids....

[reconbob]

   I would like to thank the member who was kind enough to send me several links pertaining to this. I do not spend much time on the internet and this forum is where I spend most of it. I had no idea about the challenge to the ban.

Bob

[timkel]

The ban on new MG's in the registry is considered "low hanging fruit" by some 2a lawyers.

[bmarvin]

Careful what you wish for. If the registry was opened to newly made MGs you can bet the $200 tax gets adjusted for inflation

[AlexanderA]

27 minutes ago, bmarvin said:

Careful what you wish for. If the registry was opened to newly made MGs you can bet the $200 tax gets adjusted for inflation

Raising the $200 tax would require legislation. Ruling that the Hughes Amendment was unconstitutional, if it happens, would be done through the courts. The two issues are not necessarily linked.

But if the Hughes Amendment gets thrown out by the courts (and we're a long way from that), Congress might get involved to expand the Registry by including semiautomatics. That's actually more worrisome than indexing the $200 tax to inflation.

 

[timkel]

I do wish for the registry to open back up. Pop that bubble.

[StrangeRanger]

1 hour ago, AlexanderA said:

But if the Hughes Amendment gets thrown out by the courts (and we're a long way from that), Congress might get involved to expand the Registry by including semiautomatics. That's actually more worrisome than indexing the $200 tax to inflation.

 

Stop making sense. 🙄

That has already been proposed and it would take very little to move Congress in that direction

[spall]

5 hours ago, StrangeRanger said:

Stop making sense. 🙄

That has already been proposed and it would take very little to move Congress in that direction

I don't doubt it would be attempted, but given the 70-200 million estimated semi auto firearms in circulation, it would be a monumental undertaking that would affect nearly every gun owner in the country.

A far cry from the comparatively miniscule group of people affected by the passing of the Huges Amendment.

 

Were the $200 tax stamp adjusted for inflation, silencers and SBRs would be a lot less appealing at a nearly $4,700 tax per transfer. Machineguns, on the other hand... ~$5,700 all in for a transferable M16 would be a smoking deal compared to what the market has turned in to.

[TD.]

I understand that the AR/AK style of rifles in Canada have been banned are supposed to be collected via a government buy-back program. However, the government has not been able to find a vendor to implement the program for over a year, so these rifles remain with their owners. If Canada is having problems banning AR/AK style rifles, imagine what a monumental task in would be in the USA. Easy to talk about, much more difficult to implement. Perhaps our forum members from Canada can provide some details.

The adjustment of the $200 transfer tax could happen, but the tax could not be so high as to discourage ownership. Then the tax would be viewed as a penalty or punishment and would be easily challenged. 

[AlexanderA]

11 hours ago, spall said:

Were the $200 tax stamp adjusted for inflation, silencers and SBRs would be a lot less appealing at a nearly $4,700 tax per transfer. Machineguns, on the other hand... ~$5,700 all in for a transferable M16 would be a smoking deal compared to what the market has turned in to.

 

36 minutes ago, TD. said:

The adjustment of the $200 transfer tax could happen, but the tax could not be so high as to discourage ownership. Then the tax would be viewed as a penalty or punishment and would be easily challenged. 

There are two ways in which the $200 tax could be adjusted for inflation. It depends on what baseline is to be used. If we go back and use 1934 as the baseline, then yes, we'd be looking at a $4,700 tax, which would be prohibitive and open to challenge. (Indeed, it was prohibitive in 1934, as intended.) If, instead, we use the current year as the baseline, then the $200 tax, going forward, would only increase at the general rate of inflation. This wouldn't have much significance.

Another thing to note is that the transfer tax doesn't affect current ownership. And if more guns were brought under the NFA (for example, semiautomatics), then, at least under historical precedent, initial registration would be free.  

 

[colt21a]

 Worry about the current state of life and to enjoy it in good condition. AND THAT YOU CAN CONTINUE.NOT SOME B.S. THAT HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT SINCE 1934.

and is likely to never change.

what was that kids tune... it goes round and round?