It shouldn’t be anymore than writing a check and NICS check
ATF and three manufacturers have worked to modernize the NFA transfer process.
14 Responses to “It shouldn’t be anymore than writing a check and NICS check”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
August 18th, 2017 at 4:48 pm
The correct answer is for the NFA process not to exist, since the Constitution requires it.
Keep in mind that companies that are already well connected into the existing process have NO incentive to working against it. For them, it is a tool to keep the competition away.
August 18th, 2017 at 4:57 pm
It shouldn’t be anymore than that but I’m sure a beancounter somewhere has mentioned to them , “hey, we make a shitload of money on registering these things, you’re not really going to give that up are you???!!!”
August 18th, 2017 at 5:07 pm
Something I have always wondered is, in what case would a NICS check ok you to buy a firearm but not buy an NFA item?
August 18th, 2017 at 7:39 pm
Can’t wait for Shannon Watts’ rant on this…
August 18th, 2017 at 8:58 pm
Just made this point at your “gunternet” post on 8/9…
“Here’s a fucked up fact…the biggest “suppressor” (heh) of NORGLization of NFA stuff might not be dickless antis, lefty pols, or even “the bureau’s” job security…it might be “us”. Well not all of us…”
This little consortium of vested interest is a perfect example of what I meant. This is not a good thing.
I’ve said before that affordable (i.e. normal) access to heretofore verboten hardware would be a substantial and sustaining boost to an industry suffering from what some call the gun glut or Trump slump, really just supply/demand of things to which access is artificially limited. Who wouldn’t want to put a muffler on all their noisy toys? More especially, who wouldn’t want a couple of auto fun guns properly muffled as well? Everybody would!
August 18th, 2017 at 9:06 pm
Crap, meant to cut off that last para that into other internecine opposition from groups protecting their “investment” in NFA reg-inflated hardware. Whole point being our best chance at useless prohibition in decades could be stymied by “our own”.
August 19th, 2017 at 8:33 am
too bad modernize and eliminate aren’t synonyms
August 19th, 2017 at 2:07 pm
I’ll believe it when I see it… sigh
August 20th, 2017 at 7:32 am
@Bob in Houston-Vast Right Wing Basket of deplorable!:
Contrary to popular belief, the TOTAL REVENUE for both SOT fees (what FFLs pay to deal with Title II firearms) and ALL transfer and making taxes paid for 2016 was $68,614,000 according to an official report released early in 2017. That’s also extremely high, and was only that high because people with trusts/corps opted to compress their next several years worth of buying into the first ~6 months of 2016.
The same figure for 2015 was $37,879,000.
The same figure for 2014 was $27,515,000.
The same figure for 2013 was $22,476,000.
The same figure for 2012 was $16,442,000.
The same figure for 2011 was $12,582,000.
The same figure for 2010 was $9,309,000.
Also, to be clear, that’s the ENTIRE revenue for ALL Title II-related paperwork (both annual dealer SOT payments that will largely continue uninterrupted, and ALL tax payments for both transfer and making of ALL types of Title II firearms.
In short, if firearm mufflers were to be transferred from Title II to Title I, and to be regulated like we regulate long guns, the TOTAL IMPACT on NFA branch revenue would be significantly less than $70,000,000. That’s an amount of money that means absolutely nothing to our government.
Further, the idea that revenues would fall is likely fallacious for another reason: Regulating firearm mufflers as long guns would subject them to Pittman-Robertson taxes, at around 10-11%.
As it stands, the entire silencer industry has retail revenues of around $100,000,000-200,000,000; If we were to move them from Title II to Title II, that market would IMMEDIATELY expand to a significant degree. Even if only expanded to $700,000,000, the Pittman-Robertson act taxes would MORE than make up the differences in federal revenues.
TLDR: Once you account for the salaries of BATFE personnel tasked with handling Title II paperwork, the entire NFA process becomes either a financial wash, or an outright loss. It is NOT a moneymaker. Regulating Firearm Mufflers like long guns would instead subject them to a different tax that would require almost zero effort for the government to collect, which in turn would significantly alter the balance and make it a net earner for the government — The HPA, even with the refund provision intact, would be revenue neutral for the government within 1-3 years, and would be extremely profitable for the foreseeable future thereafter.
August 20th, 2017 at 8:06 am
To add to my post above, the raw NFA-related BATFE income above also explains why wait times have constantly been so long: Every time BATFE has moved to increase staffing, and every time that they have moved to increase processing efficiency, the form load has only continued to increase.
@JTC:
Given the way in which firearm mufflers have become relatively mainstream within the industry, I don’t think there’s really a Fudd component to fighting the HPA/SHARE/etc.: The community of silencer owners has done a fairly good job of educating the gun-owning public over the last 5-10 years; The only places where there are still extremely anti-muffler Fudds is in those few northern and western coastal states held hostage by their left-leaning megacities.
Federally speaking, I think the answer to this is legislation to prohibit a lot of the idiotic laws that these states have on the books; If the federal government can *enact* a firearm feature ban, then it can certainly move to prohibit such bans at the state level. Similarly, the federal government could force states to issue their firearm licenses on a shall-issue basis based on objective criteria, and to accept the similar documents issued by all other states. This is ultimately the only short-term way to fix the problem.
Also @JTC:
The idea that mainstream MG owners want to keep 922(o) around is nonesense, at least given my observations and conversations.
As I see it, MG owners can be lumped into THREE groups:
* Shooters, and true MG enthusiasts: These people want 922(o) gone, even if it will mean that they will “lose” their current “investments” — Ultimately, for these people their MGs aren’t investments, because they never plan to sell them anyway. For these people, the repeal of 922(o) would mean that they could vastly expand their collections.
* Old people with huge collections: These people tend to be the ones with extremely large and diverse collections; In many cases, the value of the MGs these people own would not be hugely effected by the repeal of 922(o), because the guns they own are hugely collectible for other reasons: I doubt that the value of things like WWI/WWII/Korea/Vietnam GI bringbacks would fall significantly (if at all) if 922(o) were to go away.
* New speculators in the market. These people are mostly doctors, lawyers, and other high-income professionals, and the ones buying MGs as “investments” generally aren’t gun people.
In summation: The “Shooters” want 922(o) to go away; The “Collectors” won’t suffer major negative consequences if 922(o) goes away, and it will reduce the competition for old MGs — the only “collectors” who want to keep the MG ban around are the old guys who have huge collections of things like run of the mill commercial guns (Macs, M16s, HKs, etc.), and these guys are basically all dying off and feeding the “shooter” community; The “Speculators” aren’t gun people, and they’re an extremely small segment of the market.
TLDR: The MG community, along with much of the gun owning public, wants 922(o) gone.
August 20th, 2017 at 1:18 pm
HSR47…Speaking of speculation, quite a bit of it in your comment on autos, and pretty disconnected. In this context there’re really only two “groups”, the haves and have-nots. You group the haves who all actually overlap and mention the have-nots only incidentally as aspiring “shooter” beneficiaries of a changing of the guard as it were.
So the “old guys” are both curators of vintage mil collections AND greedy hoarders of clones; they don’t care about reg-enhanced value of the former but do about the latter?
Dude. You do know what an estate is right? The idea of an investment is to accumulate, utilize, and pass on wealth. As we OG’s prepare to “die off” we become more concerned with value, not less. This overlapping category would NOT like to see the market value of their estate drop by 80% which is what would happen with full deregulation (INCLUDING those rare mil collectibles you say would be unaffected…if the supply was suddenly quadrupled or more when overseas stashes hit the market -banned importation is a prime regulation component- what would happen to the “value” then? That’s de-bunk number one.
Shooters, enthusiasts, collectors, speculators (do you really think those professional entities are an extremely small segment and that they won’t lobby tooth and nail to protect their investment? Better run some numbers)…and you left off a big one; dealers many of whom add to and pay for their “investments” by renting them out…are really all one group; the “haves”, none of which would be in favor of losing “value” even if they are ideologically and theoretically opposed to gov regulation. That’s the main point of my comments, and the biggest debunk of yours.
The have-nots all want NORGlization of access. The haves overwhelmingly don’t…for obvious reasons of self-interest and who’s to blame them? Moot anyway as the critical mass of public opinion created by fear-mongering antis and a gov whose real interest is in control and self-preservation means we ain’t likely to get access to autos again even under the most 2A friendly environment in decades.
Mufflers, otoh, with the angle of hearing safety, stand a pretty good chance of normalized access, and not title I or title II or title anything related to gov regulation, but as a simple accessory like a good stock, sights, or holster. But that goal too is not advanced by a consortium of manufacturers cuddling up with the gov they ostensibly oppose; it is a matter of control, to create an environment that they, but not Joe the Plumber, can fill…keeping prices up and access limited.
Self-interest runs deep, brothers. Follow the money; always follow the money.
August 20th, 2017 at 6:02 pm
@JTC:
I own a machinegun; It cost me nearly $30,000.
The list of things that would make me happier than the demise of 922(o) is extremely short, and I have met few gun-friendly people who would not similarly welcome it’s demise.
Whenever I have the opportunity, I talk to other MG owners. The number who publicly express their desire for the elimination of 922(o) is overwhelming. Admitedly, there is a selection bias involved: I’m mostly talking to the MG owners who actually shoot their MGs, which means that they tend to be the sort of people who want lots more MGs than 922(o) allows them to afford.
“dealers many of whom add to and pay for their “investments” by renting them out…are really all one group; the “haves”, none of which would be in favor of losing “value” even if they are ideologically and theoretically opposed to gov regulation.”
No sane dealer rents out transferable machineguns. They rent out post-86 MGs. Why have something worth a brand new sports car on the firing line when you can rent out something worth the same as a 25 year old beater with 150,000 miles on the odometer?
Additionally, true MG dealers would BENEFIT from the elimination of 922(o): There is NO money in dealing in MGs. Making 10-25% on a $30,000 item that you’ll sell 2-3 of per quarter has no profit margin. On the other hand, there is significant profit margin in selling dozens of $800 M11-NINE SMGs, or a handful of $3,000 MP5 clones, or a few score of M16 assault rifles.
TLDR: You shouldn’t assume that everyone who has ever owned an MG is the sort of person who wants to keep you from owning the guns of your dreams. There are guns that we want too; 922(o) kills our dreams just as much as it kills yours, and we hate it just as much as you do. We might even hate it more.
August 20th, 2017 at 8:12 pm
Well, we’re talking past each other now, we’ll have to leave it at that.
I do like your last TLDR though, we know what we do to ourselves and each other when we assume.
My TLDR is a restatement of the old and tired but tried and true…altruism and idealism notwithstanding:
Follow the money.
August 23rd, 2017 at 12:51 pm
Well let’s hope the muffler biz cranks up enough to save some in the supply chain from the shakeout, because damn…
http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2017/08/gun-glut.html
A sub-cost .50 with an accessorized Colt AR thrown in as a bonus? Gun Glut? Yeah I’d say that’s a sign.