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.
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.