A modest proposal re-post.

[flamin lib]

With permission of mods.

I have an idea. Because it has been pointed out here that full auto guns are regulated by requiring a background investigation by the chief LEO and then another by the BATF&E which takes the better part of a year plus a $200 tax on each one and because everybody here seems resigned to that, I propose that the same be done for high capacity magazines and multiple purchases. Only adjust the tax for inflation. That $200 assessed in 1934 is now just short of $4000. There’s precedent in the 1934 NFA, Article I section 8 gives congress the power to tax as well as to organize, arm and discipline the Militia.

Leaving aside the possibility that such an approach in the current atmosphere or that such a tax would restrict ownership (clearly the intent of the 1934 tax) explain to me why such regulation cannot legally and constitutionally be instituted.

[slackmaster]

1. That would probably be Constitutional, but proposing it would be politically stupid, and...

...implementation would be impossible. It would never get out of committee in the House or Senate today, nor would it ever have been possible to pass in any Congress I can remember (my memories go back to the JFK administration).

I'm not an authority on this because my state generally does not allow NFA weapons purchases by individuals, but I believe your claim of having transfers take a "the better part of a year is incorrect. I've heard that they can happen in as little as a month or so.

Please also note that not all NFA items are presently subject to a $200 transfer tax. That applies to machineguns, sound suppressors, and destructive devices, but not to short-barrel shotguns or "AOWs" (Any Other Weapon) - The transfer tax for those is just $5.

[flamin lib]

4. Thank you. It did pass in 1934, probably in response to the

mob use of the Thompson. Given the almost daily coverage of shootings, some crime related some not, I suggest that it can happen again.

This is not a party issue. I believe that there have been as many gun regulations written and passed by Republicans as Democrats.

So, if I'm right, what is the most effective approach for gun enthusiasts to take?

[slackmaster]

5. Someone in another thread referred to the NFA as a line in the sand, and I think that's accurate

You're saying the line should be moved. I have a personal vested interest in making sure that what you propose never sees the light of day.

[flamin lib]

8. The proposal wasn't a serious one. It was meant to be a launch point

to refute the notion that the second amendment is complete protection of any and all gun regulation and to open discussion of what part firearms enthusiasts should take in shaping the discussion.

IMO the NRA approach will eventually prove to be a big problem.

[Atypical Liberal]

39. No one claims that.

No one claims that the second amendment is complete protection of any and all gun regulation.

But before we can have discussions on what sorts of regulations are appropriate, we have to agree on what the purpose of the second amendment was.

I submit to you that the purpose of the second amendment was to insure that the people would be armed with small arms appropriate for infantry use, so that they could serve in State Militias and thereby be able to serve as a substitute for, or at least a counter to, federal infantry.

Do you agree?

[damntexdem]

7. A wonderful idea. There, I finished your subject sentence for you.

And post Tucson, it might not be political suicide, although the NRA and big money from gun companies would try to make it so.

But, then, political suicide or not, sometimes politicians should do what's good for the country rather than imposing the horrors paid for by big money interests.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

24. Ask yourself "why" it's political suicide...

if the answer is because the voters would kick the politician to the curb then perhaps the politicians are doing what they are supposed to do in keeping the people happy.

Representative government should have politicians who represent thier constituents desires. Government caan't be expected to, nor should they try to protect people from themselves. If the people want to vote for protections then a politician who seeks to provide provide a nanny-state will be elected.

[flamin lib]

25. Yeah, like they did in the '50s & '60s when a majority wanted

blacks to sit in the bac of the bus . . . .

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

28. The courts dictated that even a majority cannot violate civil rights.

And the SCOTUS has determined that the Second Amendment does actually codify a preexisting civil right allowing individual ownership of firearms. Ergo, despite vociferous challenges to individual armament, The People's rights shall prevail.
Fancy That...

[shadowrider]

27. Political suicide. Ok, so the politicians do what's right, then

Republicans have the House, Senate and WH for the foreseeable future and REPEAL those laws. That ok with you?

[oneshooter]

30. So you would be willing to give up....

The House, Senate and the White House for 12 or more years? For a single bill?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[GreenStormCloud]

2. It will never pass.

I am not a lawyer so I will leave the legal issues to those more qualified. I shall discuss just one aspect - the political one. About 60% of the U.S. House and 50% of the Senate have an NRA rating of "A". That means that they COMPLETELY AGREE with the NRA. IOW - The NRA owns the Congress.

The NRA will allow such a bill to get just enough air to get some headlines. The NRA will use those for scare recruitment and fund raising, then the legislation will die in committe. Democrats will get the blame for the bill being offered at all. In the next election all Democrats will have to battle the default perception that they are anti-gun.

[X_Digger]

3. If you don't have money, you don't deserve effective self defense!

Yah, the poor? Fuck em, if they want to purchase a standard sized magazine, or two guns.

Only monied people should be able to purchase the most effective means of self-defense. The rest? pea shooters.

:sarcasm:

[flamin lib]

6. Well, that's what the congress did in 1934.

They regulated a very specific subset of a very diverse commodity. Please don't get off into the minutia of how many rounds or what color the item is. Try to focus on the question at hand. Can you, in the light of precedent site legal or constitutional defense against such regulation?

[X_Digger]

9. Yes. Heller- "in common use, for traditionally lawful purposes"

Next question?

[flamin lib]

10. If congress can regulate a specific subset of firearms can it not

define another subset and regulate it as well? The current item happens to be high capacity magazines but as I recall there was that assault weapons ban that sunset under Bush 43.

[X_Digger]

11. Precedent changes.

In 1934, the second amendment hadn't been declared a fundamental right, and incorporated against the states.

There's plenty of legislation that were it proposed today, would not be constitutional.

This is how precedent works. I suggest you pick up a good textbook on con law.

[flamin lib]

14. Thank you for the constructive criticism. Living with a legal professional for

42 years has given me fairly good concept of how the law works going back to English common law.

Yes, precedent does change as evidenced by Citizens United. Should the SCOTUS overturn the NFA (which is as unlikely as a $4000 tax on a $20 magazine) we'll have a whole 'nuther discussion. Conversely, should a future court overturn Heller the discussion will change again.

Are you suggesting that because of the Heller decision that congress cannot define and regulate firearms?

[X_Digger]

16. No, but it does set a high bar, if in dicta not in practice yet..

It'll be years, much like it took over 20 years to establish the limits of constitutional regulation for the first amendment..

See..
Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925)(dicta)
Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931)
DeJonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937)
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

23. There are limations to the extent of which congress can regulate firearms.

That limit is the commerce clause. This is the reason the Crime Control Act of 1990 was ruled unconstitutional - carte blanche regulation of how/where a firearm is carried has no reasonable bearing on interstate commerce (the power that congress has to excercise). The act was subsequently ammended in 1995 to maintain constitutionality.

Technically a magazine made, sold, and used solely in a single state should be outside the jurisdiction of congress. I believe Montana has a law allowing the use of some NFA items which are NOT federally registered because the premise is that the specific item must be entirely manufactured, sold, and used in Montana.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. So only rich people get to be armed?

How convenient.

[flamin lib]

13. No, only the rich could afford a full auto in 1934. They still had access

to a multitude of other weaponry. Congress could do the same with any other subset of weaponry.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. But if there is a $200/weapon/year tax that means only the richest can afford it

I suppose it could be debated until the entire innerwebz is filled up as to whether poor urban dwellers ought to have fully automatic weapons where crime, living space and poverty are such overbearing factors but, again, the fact that the rich hold the privileges and the power, including the power of deadly force dispensed with rapid action, seems too convenient.

Maybe high-capacity magazines ought not be in poor areas as well but Mr. McDonald in the now famous McDonald v Chicago case of last year was contending with gangs. It seems he might have needed a high capacity magazie to deal with a high capacity threat, and he is poor as well.

I will confess I am genuinely ambivalent. I think automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines have the potential for serious abuse but lately I've seen so much misinformation and outright lies that the people who claim to be looking out for me no longer hold my trust or confidence. That the ownership of power and force should be decided nearly-exclusively by the size of one's bank account seems so chilling as to override my concerns of gang-bangers gaining legal AK-47s as opposed to the illegal ones they already possess strikes me as too inconsequential.

[flamin lib]

17. I think you misunderstood the machine gun tax.

The 1934 NFA placed a one time purchase tax on full auto guns. Not annual, one time. $200 in 1934 is roughly $3800 today so the tax was clearly designed to make the guns unavailable--that and the double background investigation.

I can't take full credit for the idea; Chris Rock came up with it in a stand-up routine. "Don't worry 'bout guns, tax the bullets. If every bullet cost $5000 you don't have to worry 'bout automatic guns. Hell, you don't have to go to the hospital to get bullet out, somebody would do that on the spot!"

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

22. Just because it was done in the past does not make it legal.

It just means they got away with it. There were lots of things America did in the past that were found to be not legal. Tacking obscenely large arbitrary fees onto items was a chickenshit way to get rid of something without "banning it". Nevertheless, it was a de facto ban and everyone knows it.

I don't think gun control advocates want to touch the 1934 NFA or 1986 Hughes Amendment with a 20ft pole... because they know both would probably get canned with todays SCOTUS if they tried amending them.

[spin]

35. Gun control means keeping "those people" from owning firearms.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

18. Hicap mags are not serialized and are very widespread.

This is a technical hurdle to effective control via the 1934 NFA.

a) The BILLIONS of magazines out there you are obsessed with have no serial number, production date, or unique identifying information. How would you like the ATF to "register them"? What stops John Doe from claiming all 20 of his hicap mags are from a period before the ban.
b) SCOTUS determined NFA firearms could be more strictly regulated because they were items not in common use. Because of this, the few items out there were given amnesty periods to register and were easily accounted for.
c) The fact there are hunderds of million, if not billions, of hicap mags completely contradicts the above statement and the fact that these items would have to be grandfathered (or paid for by the government per the 5th amendment) means any law pass will have NO teeth.

Either you endorse a law that is effectively worthless in it's effectveness, or endore the outlaw of all existing magazines with no amnesty. Both positions are asinine.

[beevul]

19. Define "high capacity magazines", first of all.

"I propose that the same be done for high capacity magazines"

Define "high capacity magazines", first of all.

[shadowrider]

20. Anything over 1 n/t

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

21. Also, what would be your justification of a $4000 excise tax?

You're basing your number on "inflation of $200"... but you need to look at the $200 fee and it's justificiation.
In 1934, do you think purpose of the $200 fee was constitutional?

In 2011, do you think the purpose of the fee requires the fee to be $4000?
Is that fee in 2011, given it's purpose, constitutional?

My guess is that if your propositions became actualization that the gun lobby would have the 1934 NFA tax overturned in a heartbeat... maybe even get the 1986 MG ban nixed as well. Personally, I don't see the legal justification of arbitrary obscene fees tacked onto items as constitutional. Paperwork fees? Fine. Background check and verification fees? Fine. But $4000?!? Hell, I think $200 is obscene in the digital age when information is neatly organized and at your fingertips instantly or only a phonecall away.

[flamin lib]

26. It always comes down to this, doesn't it?

I think yada yada

It's not constitutional based on my opinion.

My guess is . . .

We can't discuss this until you define the item down to the way it smells so I can take exception to something in there somewhere.

There was a pretty good discussion going on here but now we're down to the same baseless picayune bullshit in place of even the hint of thoughtfulness.




going into ignore mode in 3...2...1

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

29. So you think it's OK to place arbitray dollar amounts on actions to effect a ban in-actuality?

What if the action was smoking weed?
Hey, MJ is not illegal anywhere! You only need a $4000 tax on that joint.

What if the action was drinking beer?
Hey, alcohol is not illegal anywhere! You only need a $4000 tax on that six-pack.

What if the action was joining a union?
Hey, organized labor is not illegal anywhere! You only need a $4000 tax for your Union Card.

[PavePusher]

31. The NFA tax is, in my view, clearly unConstitutional.

If we keep it, it should apply to all Civil Rights via the Fourteenth.

Who's ox gored now...?

[Remmah2]

32. Bad proposal.

It's a proposal in the form of a mandate without provisions for compromise. Very one sided.

[kudzu22]

33. It would be challenged in the Supreme Court

And probably overturned, and in so doing would probably take down the Hughes amendment (if not the entire NFA) with it.

[RSillsbee]

34. OK, so where's the downside? NT

[kudzu22]

36. Well, I inferred that the OP liked the NFA/Hughes as is

and would therefore see their downfall as a bad thing.

[RSillsbee]

37. AAAAHHHHHHH Now I get it. NT

[Atypical Liberal]

38. How do you define a high-capacity magazine?

How do you define a high-capacity magazine?

What will you do about the half-a-billion high-capacity magazines already in circulation, representing nearly $3 billion in personal property?

How do you square the intent of the second amendment - to equip citizens with small arms appropriate for infantry use - with disbarring magazines for those arms that are also appropriate for infantry use?