Unfair suppressor cost

[Glocktogo]

It seems glocktogo has the time to read the FFA of 1930(sic) amended and amended to ad nauseum and I don't. 51 year shooter and hunter...I get it. Referencing me to my error is different than a barb about education. I have that as well.
It was a rant. Not a manifesto well researched, documented and cited.
I like this forum because of the local identity and the very positive posters who have tons of great information and pause for thought on wide and varied issues.
This is still one of the better online venues that I can only compare to the Glock Forum.
Perhaps reading the post is in my wheel house.

My post was merely pointing out that your rant would have more impact if you directed it at the appropriate target, which is not the state. If you've been a shooter for 51 years, how have you avoided knowing about the 1934 NFA Act for five decades?

Anyone interested in the fight against the gun grabbers should be familiar with the following:

The 1934 NFA Act
The 1968 Gun Control Act (GCA)
The 1986 machine gun ban (FOPA or Firearms Owners Protection Act)
The 1989 George H.W. BUSH import ban (Title 18 Chapter 44 Section 922(r))
The 1994 Clinton Assault Weapons Ban (Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act)
The 1996 "Lautenberg Amendment"

These are the watershed event in the RKBA fight in America. As the old NBC PSA said "The more you know..."

 

[Glocktogo]

So my question would be, if Oklahoma passed a law making suppressors made in Oklahoma legal to own in Oklahoma, would the NFA apply in Oklahoma?

Not in federal court as CAR-AR stated. It would be just like "legal" pot in Colorado. The feds can and will still prosecute at their discretion. I can assure you that BATFE and the DoJ will prosecute NFA violation FAR more strenuously than a recreational pot user. That's the political climate we live in.

 

[NikatKimber]

Let's keep from being mean and/or divisive. If we are here discussing guns and ownership, then we should also do our best to be fighting on the same side.

Let's not run off new members because they were previously uneducated in all things gun.

My post was merely pointing out that your rant would have more impact if you directed it at the appropriate target, which is not the state. If you've been a shooter for 51 years, how have you avoided knowing about the 1934 NFA Act for five decades?

Anyone interested in the fight against the gun grabbers should be familiar with the following:

The 1934 NFA Act
The 1968 Gun Control Act (GCA)
The 1986 machine gun ban (FOPA or Firearms Owners Protection Act)
The 1989 George H.W. BUSH import ban (Title 18 Chapter 44 Section 922(r))
The 1994 Clinton Assault Weapons Ban (Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act)
The 1996 "Lautenberg Amendment"

These are the watershed event in the RKBA fight in America. As the old NBC PSA said "The more you know..."

Because as a whole, the gun community has done a poor job in educating itself (and the public) about gun laws historically. That is changing, and I would like to see it continue doing so.

Granted, I don't claim to have been a shooter for five decades, but I know plenty of older generation shooters who still are amazed that it's legal to own a suppressor at all.

The OP's amazement at current restrictions is exactly what we should all feel. Blatant restriction and fees to exercise rights should appall us all.

What we should aim to do is use that energy to further the education about guns and gun laws, and continue the grass roots level movement towards restoring gun freedoms.

None of that happens when we make fun of the person who, for whatever reason, didn't know.

 

[SoonerP226]

So my question would be, if Oklahoma passed a law making suppressors made in Oklahoma legal to own in Oklahoma, would the NFA apply in Oklahoma?

It shouldn't, but until the shameful decision in Wickard v. Filburn gets overturned, it will, and the BATFE and DoJ will make sure it does.

FWIW, it's already legal to own Made In Oklahoma suppressors in Oklahoma, they're just not NFA-exempt. Unfortunately, no amount of legislating in OKC can change that.

 

[JD8]

Let's keep from being mean and/or divisive. If we are here discussing guns and ownership, then we should also do our best to be fighting on the same side.

Let's not run off new members because they were previously uneducated in all things gun.



Because as a whole, the gun community has done a poor job in educating itself (and the public) about gun laws historically. That is changing, and I would like to see it continue doing so.

Granted, I don't claim to have been a shooter for five decades, but I know plenty of older generation shooters who still are amazed that it's legal to own a suppressor at all.

The OP's amazement at current restrictions is exactly what we should all feel. Blatant restriction and fees to exercise rights should appall us all.

What we should aim to do is use that energy to further the education about guns and gun laws, and continue the grass roots level movement towards restoring gun freedoms.

None of that happens when we make fun of the person who, for whatever reason, didn't know.

In the same right, knee jerk reactions don't help the gun community either. None of this information was a secret, and as gun owners we would do well to point our pitchforks in the right direction.

 

[Shadowrider]

Let's keep from being mean and/or divisive. If we are here discussing guns and ownership, then we should also do our best to be fighting on the same side.

Let's not run off new members because they were previously uneducated in all things gun.



Because as a whole, the gun community has done a poor job in educating itself (and the public) about gun laws historically. That is changing, and I would like to see it continue doing so.

Granted, I don't claim to have been a shooter for five decades, but I know plenty of older generation shooters who still are amazed that it's legal to own a suppressor at all.

The OP's amazement at current restrictions is exactly what we should all feel. Blatant restriction and fees to exercise rights should appall us all.

What we should aim to do is use that energy to further the education about guns and gun laws, and continue the grass roots level movement towards restoring gun freedoms.

None of that happens when we make fun of the person who, for whatever reason, didn't know.

While I agree with "educational" part of your opinion, there was absolutely nothing wrong with GTG's post. It was complete fact. He had no way of knowing if the O/P was going to get all bent out of shape when it was pointed out that he was ignorant of the facts. So yes, we should try to inform the uninformed, but if they don't like it when it happens publicly, maybe they shouldn't rant publicly. I'm just saying...

 

[NikatKimber]

In the same right, knee jerk reactions don't help the gun community either. None of this information was a secret, and as gun owners we would do well to point our pitchforks in the right direction.

Which is exactly what I was getting at. Yes, it was a knee jerk reaction; yes without knowledge it will hurt us; but the outrage at being taxed to exercise rights is exactly what we need more of.

While I agree with "educational" part of your opinion, there was absolutely nothing wrong with GTG's post. It was complete fact. He had no way of knowing if the O/P was going to get all bent out of shape when it was pointed out that he was ignorant of the facts. So yes, we should try to inform the uninformed, but if they don't like it when it happens publicly, maybe they shouldn't rant publicly. I'm just saying...

Agree completely. GTG is one I would say is a model gun owner.

My comment was aimed at the "how could you not know?" and "just be glad it's not higher" comments that have been made in this thread (not just by GTG).

 

[kevin brown]

The $200 NFA tax set in 1934 would be about $3600 in today's dollars.

Wow that mean's that all mt NFA stamps cound have been around $28,800. That I would have never been able to afford. In stead of $1,405. Let's hope they never change it. Anytime soon I still have a few more i want to get.

 

[steelfingers]

Because for 51 years I had no reason to know the NFA as I grew up having to use fire arms to hunt and to eat. There were no need or reason to know the NFA for 51 years. I also do not know most of the Federal register regulations that are the size of a house produced newly yearly. I don't also know the exact distance from the earth to the sun even though it is very important to us (the sun).
I know now the NFA, as much as I ever want to know, only because I just now are needing a suppressor to be a good neighbor where I intend to set up a shooting range (private) on my land. I don't know the atomic weight of nitrogen as well but if I ever do I will find out.
It's not the money. Fortunately I can afford to buy one or as many as I need. That's not so for others. My misinformation and "rant" was from my local FFL and talking to someone other than the owner about the purchase of a suppressor and listened to a similar rant from someone that seemed to know his stuff. MY MISTAKE.
As far as knowledge is our strength, I agree. I also support, financially, the NRA and the Political Action Committee (PAC) that supports our 2nd amendment rights. I educate myself on the issues and support those actions that I feel are appropriate.
I guess the biggest mistake I have made, on this site, is making a knee jerk statement without facts. Even so, I cannot support any tax/stamp/user fee that is enacted by Rule or regulation (Federal or State) that limits the availability of legal weapons/suppressors that excludes a portion of the population that are not as financially secure as some. Like me 51 years ago.
Working with state and fed legislation over 30 years, I would love to point out Federal acts that directly impinge on your rights that you have no clue about and say "You should know after 51 years?
PHEEWWW. I'm exhausted

 

[CAR-AR-M16]

If you really want to get upset, go look at the cost of a machinegun. Transfer tax is the same $200, but since the feds banned production of any more for civilians back in 1986, the prices have skyrocketed. An M16 should cost no more than an AR15, but a legally registered M16 will run you $20,000 or more.