The 'gov.' must be forced to prove that ANY 'gun control' has EVER 'controlled' a single criminal. The 'ban' on full auto was because of the mafia gangs using them in crimes. The Ban had Zero affect on these crimes.
There is no federal ban on full-automatic weapons and never has been. What changed was the imposition of registration and an associated tax. Some states, under the 10th Amendment (?), have banned private ownership of fully automatic firearms (e.g., Washington).
It's the Obamacare defense, claiming that an unreasonable law that has a taxable component makes the entire law a tax law is a ludicrous stance to take.
When a $200 tax stamp gets slapped to a $209 gun (Cost of a Thompson machine gun during the advent of the NFA), that's not passed for the purposes of taxation, it's passed for the purposes of banning.
Of course the law is unconstitutional. I wasn't saying it was. I was pointing out that machine guns were not banned. If you can afford the gun (and ammo) you can afford that tax. A $200 excise tax in 1934 would be $6,354 today. According to law, the excise tax on firearms other than pistols and revolvers should be 11%. A present-day transferable machine gun (e.g., Auto Ordnance M1 Thompson in .45 ACP) is for sale at $34,995, for which an 11% tax would be $3,849.45. It turns out they are a scarce commodity. Driving a Bugatti Veyron is not banned either, but try buying one.
The 'gov.' must be forced to prove that ANY 'gun control' has EVER 'controlled' a single criminal. The 'ban' on full auto was because of the mafia gangs using them in crimes. The Ban had Zero affect on these crimes.
There is no federal ban on full-automatic weapons and never has been. What changed was the imposition of registration and an associated tax. Some states, under the 10th Amendment (?), have banned private ownership of fully automatic firearms (e.g., Washington).
It's the Obamacare defense, claiming that an unreasonable law that has a taxable component makes the entire law a tax law is a ludicrous stance to take.
When a $200 tax stamp gets slapped to a $209 gun (Cost of a Thompson machine gun during the advent of the NFA), that's not passed for the purposes of taxation, it's passed for the purposes of banning.
Of course the law is unconstitutional. I wasn't saying it was. I was pointing out that machine guns were not banned. If you can afford the gun (and ammo) you can afford that tax. A $200 excise tax in 1934 would be $6,354 today. According to law, the excise tax on firearms other than pistols and revolvers should be 11%. A present-day transferable machine gun (e.g., Auto Ordnance M1 Thompson in .45 ACP) is for sale at $34,995, for which an 11% tax would be $3,849.45. It turns out they are a scarce commodity. Driving a Bugatti Veyron is not banned either, but try buying one.