Has the NFA itself ever been targeted by anti-gun politicians?

[armed civilian]

I don't ever recall reading or hearing about it but obviously the weapons it allows are the best examples of what they demagogue and seek to outlaw.

I expect Obama to go all in for getting some new anti gun legislation passed but maybe the tax stamp solution isn't on their radar...

I'm thinking I better hurry up and get my Trust established and file applications quick. Am I just over reacting?

[Hydguy]

The National Firearms Act has not been 'targeted' by the anti's to my knowledge. However, prior to '86, MG's were really a very small niche thing. Once the MG ban portion of the FOPA '86 became law, interest started to grow, and then after the AWB of '94, it really exploded.

There is not much chance of any anti-gun legislation passing in the next 2 years, as the Republicans still hold the House by a good margin, but in some states (the usual suspects), I can see more legislation passing , especially in the form of onerous taxes. And most of those states bar ownership of most, if not all NFA weapons...

ETA:

However, with Obama appearing to win a second term, we have to be aware of what happens with SCotUS, as Obama will probably get at least one more pick before he leaves office, and possibly as many as 4, as 4 of them are in their late 70's, and 2 of them are Conservatives. That could really damage the Second Amendment.

[Iraqgunz]

I predict that since Obama is now a lame duck he will use Executive Orders to attack the 2nd Amendment. He may even attempt something like what Cook County has done and impose a tax on firearms to pay for healthcare (which may not survive a legal challenge) but make no mistake he now has nothing to lose and he will probably consult with all of the key players to do so.

[GaryG]

I don't think we have to worry about attacks on NFA items.

The flaming libs often cite the NFA laws as examples of how gun control works.

[Heavy Metal]

I predict that since Obama is now a lame duck he will use Executive Orders to attack the 2nd Amendment. He may even attempt something like what Cook County has done and impose a tax on firearms to pay for healthcare (which may not survive a legal challenge) but make no mistake he now has nothing to lose and he will probably consult with all of the key players to do so.

You can't pass a tax with an executive order. Only Congress has the power to levy a tax.

[Iraqgunz]

Please don't read into what I said. I never said he would use an Executive Order to pass a tax. When I say "he" will attempt to use a tax I mean that he COULD prod the Dems to pass a tax in Congress on firearms and they will justify by claiming "but it's for healthcare", blah, blah, blah.


You can't pass a tax with an executive order. Only Congress has the power to levy a tax.

[Magic_Salad0892]

Please don't read into what I said. I never said he would use an Executive Order to pass a tax. When I say "he" will attempt to use a tax I mean that he COULD prod the Dems to pass a tax in Congress on firearms and they will justify by claiming "but it's for healthcare", blah, blah, blah.

That wouldn't make them illegal though. And wouldn't even cripple the industry too bad would it? Unless the tax was some rediculous amount of money.

[cinco]

That wouldn't make them illegal though. And wouldn't even cripple the industry too bad would it? Unless the tax was some rediculous amount of money.

Think NFA $200 tax per weapon (whatever flavor). Precedence is what politicians love.

[Iraqgunz]

I guess people want to read into everything I am saying. Please re-read my statements.


That wouldn't make them illegal though. And wouldn't even cripple the industry too bad would it? Unless the tax was some rediculous amount of money.

[Hydguy]

To my knowledge, the only president to enact any gun control legislation through EO was G H Bush, and that only applied to imported firearms that were not considered 'sporting arms', and I believe he had the ability to do that because of both the fact that they were imported, and the GCA '68, and how it defined 'sporting arms'.

[hjmpanzr]

I wouldn't expect to see NFA issues come under fire from Congress anytime soon. As mentioned above, the Rs control the House and the Ds have higher "progressive" priorities. Gun control is pretty toxic and while Obama can't run for reelection again, the Ds would like to take the House in 2014 and many Ds don't want to vote on gun control.

During the past 6 years, I can't recall any truly serious efforts targeting the so-called assault rifle which is probably the comparable gun issue to NFA regulated items. However, it should not be taken for granted that because most Rs (and some Ds) would oppose a clinton like era assault ban that they would also oppose targeting NFA issues. I frequent legislative offices, albeit not on gun issues, and I think it is fair to say that many members of Congress are not very aware of NFA items. Many probably do not know that they are legal and may be surprised to learn that they are. While some folks on the Hill may generally oppose gun control initiatives they may be much less interested in opposing greater NFA restrictions. But again, it is not a priority and progressives would much rather see an "assault weapon" ban than messing around with NFA issues.

The real and immediate threat to NFA issues is from the action or lack of action of the Executive branch (more or less what Iraqguns was getting at). I know this is a surprise but the federal govt is broke. One way to save money is for the DOJ/Treasury not to fill positions or divert govt employees work from working our stamps to doing other things. Shortly, the wait time would increase well beyond our current 6-8 month wait. I suspect AG Holder would proudly say that he is implementing selective freezes to save the govt $.

A key to see if progressives are targeting NFA items is to watch state initiatives. When you start seeing a concerted effort in more than a handful of states, then they may be setting up a federal run but I suspect they would go after other firearms first.