quote:

Originally posted by ibanda:

quote:

Originally posted by TVzombie:
Ok, $0 tax and no Form 4 on SBR, SBS and suppressors. Does that mean I can now sell my previously taxed item without ATF hassle and w/o passing the transfer cost to the buyer or a 4473?

Thanks in advance.
-TVz

Two separate laws. SBR and SBS were under the GCA (Gun Control Act) my understanding is, that's still in effect and you still need Form 4.

Suppressors were under NFA (National Firearms Act), that has an injunction thru a federal court and everything has changed (for now).

I would think you could legally sell an NFA suppressor today (certainly not legal advice). But part 2 of that, how do you get your name off the registry tied to the serial number without a Form 4 transfer? There's not a new mechanism for that yet.....

I'm no legal scholar, but reading a bunch the last couple of days and if I'm wrong someone will correct me.

SBRs and SBSs are defined under GCA and regulated under NFA. I have not read the court ruling, but I'm going to guess anyway that it was specific to suppressors. If true, then nothing has really changed as far as SBRs and SBSs go until another court says so or the laws are changed. Yes the same logic, no tax therefore the rest of the NFA requirements are unconstitutional, should apply. If not true, then NFA requirements no longer apply to SBRs or SBSs and the definitions under GCA stay the same, but they'd be distinctions without a difference.

Suppressors should not be any sort of a deal other than having the money to purchase one.
Unfortunately there are countless “shouldn’t be” things that are.

I like the one suppressor I use on bolt action rifles because it reduces recoil and reduces the sound to the earplug-safe level with 308 Win, 6.5 Creedmoor, and 223 Remington.

If it were suddenly as legal as it should be for me to contact Thunder Beast and have them ship a 6.5 ULTRA 7 to my home when they cleared their backlog, I’d do that, but it’s not. As it is, the need or desire for another can is not sufficient for me to go through the NFA process to satisfy Colorado’s “Mother, may I?” legal requirement to own them. That requirement will probably never end, and the way this state is going it may actually become more oppressive. At least I have the one (for now), and my sympathies to all those who can’t.

PSA just released that they aren't participating. They are going to wait and see...

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Of course a future administration may try to reinstate the regulations.

If the court finally determines the NFA registration to be unconstitutional, on what basis does a future administration reinstate it?

Reinstate the tax.

This court ruled NFA requirements were unconstitutional without the tax.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
I have not read the court ruling, but I'm going to guess anyway that it was specific to suppressors.

It would probably be a good thing if we don't just guess about stuff like this. The court ruling is available, and it applies to SBR's as well. We can guess about what the ATF is going to do and advise, or what else will shake out, but guessing about what is currently in black and white while we have forum members asking if they can slap a stock on a pistol is probably not a great thing to do.

quote:

Originally posted by SIG4EVA:
PSA just released that they aren't participating. They are going to wait and see...

Interesting. Was that specific to online sales?

quote:

Danny_PSA • 4h ago
You’re correct, we are currently selling and transferring under 4473 only at all SC locations.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
It would probably be a good thing if we don't just guess about stuff like this.

What a novel notion.

So, if the courts also made the tax unconstitutional would that solve the problem?

quote:

Originally posted by clipper1:
So, if the courts also made the tax unconstitutional would that solve the problem?

1) what problem?
2) there is currently no tax (hasnt been for a while now)
3) the tax (when it existed) was already deemed constitutional because "congress has the power to impose a tax"

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:

quote:

Originally posted by ibanda:

quote:

Originally posted by TVzombie:
Ok, $0 tax and no Form 4 on SBR, SBS and suppressors. Does that mean I can now sell my previously taxed item without ATF hassle and w/o passing the transfer cost to the buyer or a 4473?

Thanks in advance.
-TVz

Two separate laws. SBR and SBS were under the GCA (Gun Control Act) my understanding is, that's still in effect and you still need Form 4.

Suppressors were under NFA (National Firearms Act), that has an injunction thru a federal court and everything has changed (for now).

I would think you could legally sell an NFA suppressor today (certainly not legal advice). But part 2 of that, how do you get your name off the registry tied to the serial number without a Form 4 transfer? There's not a new mechanism for that yet.....

I'm no legal scholar, but reading a bunch the last couple of days and if I'm wrong someone will correct me.

SBRs and SBSs are defined under GCA and regulated under NFA. I have not read the court ruling, but I'm going to guess anyway that it was specific to suppressors. If true, then nothing has really changed as far as SBRs and SBSs go until another court says so or the laws are changed. Yes the same logic, no tax therefore the rest of the NFA requirements are unconstitutional, should apply. If not true, then NFA requirements no longer apply to SBRs or SBSs and the definitions under GCA stay the same, but they'd be distinctions without a difference.

You need to read the ruling. Basically it says that the NFA does not apply to suppressors, SBSs, AOWs, and SBRs because the authority to regulate them under the NFA depends on their being a non-zero tax. It’s doesn’t address state laws, or other parts of law like the GCA, or make a ruling that the NFA is unconstitutional because of the 2A. The ruling allows suppressors/SBRs/SBSs/and AOWs to be treated the same as other firearms, meaning you just need a 4473, or not for a private sale, and enjoins the ATF from prosecuting NFA violations on these items. That’s really all it does, but it opens up a whole new set of downstream consequences that really haven’t been addressed.

The issue with SBRs and SBSs requiring a Form 4 because the GCA specifies that the Director of the ATF be notified, and the NFA process is how they do that. The GCA hasn’t been touched, so the notification requirement still applies, although I’m guessing the government could come up with an alternate notification process if they chose to. Silencers don’t have the same requirement under the GCA, so that’s why they aren’t affected.

At least that’s how I understand it.

Duh, the dunce cap is on. That was just stupid but I did just come inside from having to do a little bit of work in the hot sun. Ya I know, excuses excuses.

quote:

Originally posted by creslin:
3) the tax (when it existed) was already deemed constitutional because "congress has the power to impose a tax"

US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes ….”

How could a court “make” Congress’ power to tax unconstitutional?
So yes, the next Leftist-controlled Congress and President could—and very likely might—reimpose the NFA tax, and not just at the paltry $200 level.

The thing to understand is that the Left wants guns regulated out of private ownership not for any “public safety” reason but because most gun owners aren’t Leftists, or at least not the sort that they approve of. Anything they can do to harass non-Left gun owners and make gun ownership and use more difficult or less satisfying they will do, and that includes measures that aren’t specifically related to Second Amendment issues. That, of course, applies only to non-Leftist gun owners. If it were a crowd carrying red flags and demanding the end of the Senate and Supreme Court, they would be all for gun ownership—until their aims had been met and there was no reason for the mobs to be armed any longer, then it would be “No guns for you or off to the gulag” (if you’re lucky).

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by creslin:
3) the tax (when it existed) was already deemed constitutional because "congress has the power to impose a tax"

US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes ….”

How could a court “make” Congress’ power to tax unconstitutional?
So yes, the next Leftist-controlled Congress and President could—and very likely might—reimpose the NFA tax, and not just at the paltry $200 level.

Re-read what I wrote
I did not say UNconstitutional

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
How could a court “make” Congress’ power to tax unconstitutional?
So yes, the next Leftist-controlled Congress and President could—and very likely might—reimpose the NFA tax, and not just at the paltry $200 level.

Care to explain why a poll tax is unconstitutional?

quote:

Originally posted by creslin:
Re-read what I wrote
I did not say UNconstitutional

I was responding to the post by clipper1. I quoted yours to (try to) make it clear that I supported what you said.

quote:

Originally posted by Dwill104:
[SNIP]

The issue with SBRs and SBSs requiring a Form 4 because the GCA specifies that the Director of the ATF be notified, and the NFA process is how they do that. The GCA hasn’t been touched, so the notification requirement still applies, although I’m guessing the government could come up with an alternate notification process if they chose to. Silencers don’t have the same requirement under the GCA, so that’s why they aren’t affected.

At least that’s how I understand it.

Is this the language from the GCA you are referring to?

18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful Acts

(b) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver—
(4) to any person any destructive device, machine gun (as defined in section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, except as specifically authorized by the Attorney General consistent with public safety and necessity;

Here's my Silencer Shop story for the day:

I've been wanting a suppressor for years - just didn't want to go through the hassle, the paperwork and the wait.

That said, this situation caught me unawares and so it was 10 am here in Central Texas before I heard about Silencer Shop and the federal ruling. I immediately jumped on my PC and tried to order 2 cans. Every screen I browsed through (looking at options, deciding what I really needed), the Silencer Shop's server was slowing down more and more. It had started slow, but now it was crawling through ever-hardening molasses.

Being an ex-IT guy, I figured that someone at Silencer Shop forgot to let their web service host company know that they might get slammed (and the provider therefore didn't set up the flexibility for many many more servers to kick in and carry the load of traffic for today). A horrible move (but one I've seen many customers make over the years).

But I will not be denied, so I persist and finally get my items in my cart and get to the page where I could input my address and select a dealer to ship the cans to - and now it's taking 10 to 12 minutes between clicks.

I'm hanging in there and finally get to the payment screen which is loading - for over an hour before I had to leave with my wife and go to lunch with a friend.

Seeing I'm really bummed about this, my wife suggests trying the transaction on my iPhone. I scoff at her - knowing how horrible the Safari browser is and how flaky it can be but her friend is driving to the restaurant, so I try it.

Five minutes later (no kidding) and I'm done with the transaction paid, done and complete. My wife gives me that "You should always listen to me" look and the only thing I can figure is that Silencer Shop uses a different server or provider for phone-app transactions.

In any case, I came away happy - and as always, proud of my wife.

So - in case you're struggling with the SS web site - go to iPhone.

Seems like in some states/FFL, they are doing a wait and see.

Others are just going with the flow and letting it go with a 4473.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:

quote:

Originally posted by Dwill104:
[SNIP]

The issue with SBRs and SBSs requiring a Form 4 because the GCA specifies that the Director of the ATF be notified, and the NFA process is how they do that. The GCA hasn’t been touched, so the notification requirement still applies, although I’m guessing the government could come up with an alternate notification process if they chose to. Silencers don’t have the same requirement under the GCA, so that’s why they aren’t affected.

At least that’s how I understand it.

Is this the language from the GCA you are referring to?

18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful Acts

(b) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver—
(4) to any person any destructive device, machine gun (as defined in section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, except as specifically authorized by the Attorney General consistent with public safety and necessity;

Yes. I just couldn’t remember which government official had to approve.

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:
Care to explain why a poll tax is unconstitutional?

I am not a member of the Court, but if I were it would be because taxes may not be used for the purpose of inhibiting a right, in that case the right to vote—which was what poll taxes were all about, along with things like “literacy” tests.

Ah, you say: “What about a tax that inhibits the right to own arms?”
Yes, that would be unconstitutional as well, but that’s unfortunately not what (I understand) the court in this case based its ruling on.

A future Congress could reimpose the NFA tax and unless a court overturned it on the basis of its being merely a subterfuge to infringe on the right of gun ownership we’d be back where we started in 1934. And something else to keep in mind is that a tax that inhibited ownership of certain types of guns (e.g., SBR) could be challenged on Second Amendment grounds, but what about suppressors? How are they protected? I obviously hope none of that comes about, but it is hardly impossible.

quote:

Originally posted by Dwill104:
The issue with SBRs and SBSs requiring a Form 4 because the GCA specifies that the Director of the ATF be notified, and the NFA process is how they do that. The GCA hasn’t been touched, so the notification requirement still applies, although I’m guessing the government could come up with an alternate notification process if they chose to. Silencers don’t have the same requirement under the GCA, so that’s why they aren’t affected.

At least that’s how I understand it.

GCA of 1968 Originally referred to:

"Short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, except as specifically authorized by the Secretary consistent with public safety and
necessity"

"Secretary" is Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate by definition.

ATF is the current delegate, SBRs and SBSs were authorized as long as the NFA requirements were followed and the tax was paid. No tax, no NFA runconsitutional, ATF gets notified on a 4473, no problem with GCA.

I won't be the test case.