Initially, most likely yes.
Eventually price would come down, due to economy of scale.
Printable View
Initially, most likely yes.
Eventually price would come down, due to economy of scale.
I think you mean decrease due to larger potential market. And it would happen fast. Most suppressors made and sold here are made to a premium level because of the major cost and hassle of buying one. There's no reason you can't make a cheap, lower quality suppressor for about the price of a car muffler. I wouldn't want to wait 6 months and pay a $200 stamp tax to get a $50 suppressor, but if my total outlay is $50 and cash-and-carry, why not? And I think that would very quickly drive down prices on premium suppressors.
Fair enough...but his voting record regarding 2A rights is strong:
Strongly support the 2nd Amendment. (Aug 2004)
We need criminal control not gun control. (Aug 2004)
Voted NO on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets. (Apr 2013)
Voted YES on allowing firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains. (Apr 2009)
Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
Voted YES on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
Voted YES on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
No lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jan 2001)
Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)
No United Nations taxation on firearms. (Sep 2003)
National cross-state standard for concealed carry. (Jan 2009)
Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Aug 2010)
Oppose the United Nations' Arms Trade Treaty. (Sep 2013)
Ban gun registration & trigger lock law in Washington DC. (Mar 2007)
Allow firearms in National Parks. (Feb 2008)
Apply concealed carry permit to all other states where legal. (Feb 2009)
I could see it going either way but I tend to agree with Outlander. I see with the initial rush, there's no reason for manufacturers to lower the cost. Likely they'd go up. Once the market becomes saturated, prices would stabilize and/or start to decrease until it finds its equilibrium.
He's been a politician since first elected in 1976. Diagnosed with Parkinson's in June of 2015 declaring it would not deter him from running for re-election in 2016. Enough already. Retire.
Back on thread OP...
I'll contact my legislators. I'd probably add more suppressors if it became an over the counter opportunity. We also risk awaking a wolverine whereby the gubmint looks closely at the $200 stamp, adjust for inflation and we have a tax that becomes ginormous to pay for "safety and regulation" and the $750 can becomes the $1500+ can.
Initially, the price would go up as the demand would far outweigh the available supply. As suppressor manufacturers add capacity to meet demand, the price would reach equilibrium. Simple economics says prices would have to go up unless manufacturers have unused capacity we dont know about.
I'll gladly pay more provided I don't need a permission slip from a revenue agency.
DHS was a horrible idea. ATF really weren't meant to be police, but tax collectors. Which made the whole Waco thing extra sickening.
If I may paraphrase River from Serenity "People don't like us because we are meddlesome. We meddle. We don't leave people be."
ETA yes, Waco was way before 9/11...and now a Treasury agency is on par with the CIA and FBI? Yeah...I'm feeling pretty free right now.
Think $3500+ if the ridiculous tax was adjusted for inflation. It was meant to be totally prohibitive in 1934, but they didn't figure in the massive devaluation in the dollar that was coming.
From dollartimes.com:
$200.00 in 1934 had the same buying power as $3,557.76 in 2015.
Annual inflation over this period was 3.62%.
I agree that there is risk in trying to get this passed, but there's always risks, and it's better if the RKBA side is on the offensive rather than being silent and waiting for the next incremental loss of freedom.