The RIFLE Act

[Angel Eyes]

https://www.ammoland.com/2024/05/republicans-announce-rifle-act-to-eliminate-nfa-tax/

U.S. Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) and a dozen of his Senate Republican colleagues have introduced legislation to eliminate the $200 tax imposed by the government since 1934 on firearms and suppressors (silencers) regulated by the National Firearms Act (NFA).

The legislation is known as the Repealing Illegal Freedom and Liberty Excises (RIFLE) Act.

Joining Cotton as co-sponsors are fellow Republican Senators Marco Rubio and Rick Scott (Florida), Roger Marshall (Kansas), Steve Daines (Montana), Deb Fischer and Pete Ricketts (Nebraska), Kevin Cramer (North Dakota), Markwayne Mullin (Oklahoma), Marsha Blackburn (Tennessee), John Cornyn (Texas), and John Barrasso and Cynthia Lummis (Wyoming). Republican Congresswoman Ashley Hinson of Iowa has introduced companion legislation in the House, Cotton’s office noted in a release.

My take: good idea, which means it has a snowball's chance in hell of passing.  But I would like to at least see it come up for a vote just to see who votes against.

[Boomhauer]

They always introduce *expletive deleted*it when it doesn’t have a chance of passing but sit on their hands when they control everything

[dogmush]

Eliminate the tax, but still require registration?

A step in the right direction, I guess. Probably makes it more likely to pass since it includes extra background checks, fingerprints,  and registration.

[HankB]

Most of the comments at the ammoland site correctly put this down as political posturing that everyone - especially the authors and co sponsors - knows doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of going anywhere today. (Remember the Hearing Protection Act that was supposed to remove suppressors from NFA requirements?)

[Pb]

They always introduce *expletive deleted*it when it doesn’t have a chance of passing but sit on their hands when they control everything

This.

They didn't introduce anything when Trump was in, and both houses of congress were in GOP hands.

They didn't even give the Hearing Protection Act a hearing.

[WLJ]

Wake me when there's a president in the WH who won't veto it or there's enough votes in the house to override a veto.

[230RN]

^ Agreed. Also, this has the flavor of endorsing the Constitutionality of the whole NFA... at least to me.

A mere palliative, which does not attack the underlying  sickness.

However, it does bring attention in the form of a sidewise glance, to the "let's pass it and if it's unconstitutional, let the Courts sort it out" attitude of most of our legislators. 

How any legislator back in the thirties who was honest with himself, could possibly believe that this "tax" measure was not an "infringement" is beyond me.

And ditto on Boomhauer's post.

Terry, 230RN

[Hawkmoon]

How any legislator back in the thirties who was honest with himself, could possibly believe that this "tax" measure was not an "infringement" is beyond me.

They knew perfectly well what it was. When it was enacted $200 was serious money. $200 in 1934 is worth $4,679.82 today, thanks to inflation.

[230RN]

Yes, I've calculated and posted that inflation factor a number of times to illustrate that it was an infringement, whatever "tax" bullshit you might call it.  I added that inflation number (or one like it) to the modern equivalent cost of a suppressor a couple of times for illustrative purposes.

The point was they were dishonest in attempting to circumvent what is probably the most simply and clearly stated limitation on the power of the government in the entire Constitution.

True in 1934, true today. 

You can call it "interest balancing" if you want to, but all the "interest balancing" was done by the colonies who endorsed the Bill Of Rights.  Those old boys, with their knowledge that all governments tend to limit freedom, knew what the hell they were doing.

Its time we all recognized and proclaimed that the NFA was just about the earliest "First Step" in total disarmament of the United States citizenry.

If they could pull that one off, they could piss on the Constitution any way they wanted without even closing their flies afterwards.

True in 1934, true today!

Terry, 230RN