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

[BobR]

After the Dems are back in control of it all......

Wait, what, they only have to pay a 200 dollar tax for a machine gun!!!! 


bob

[230RN]

Yeah, it's only a 200 dollar tax punitive assessment.  Obviously that's not punishment enough nowadays.  And as a practical matter, some would say it's punishment in advance of a crime being committed.

That whole complex of individual unconstitutional requirements of the NFA has to be repealed in total, and the Supreme Court should not be allowed to wimp out by nibbling at it an issue at a time or requiring specific plaintiffs to have "standing."

Each and every one of us has standing.  I would guess that's about 230 million(±) adults in the United States who have standing.

I'm one of them.

Are you?

Terry, 230RN

[MechAg94]

Does this act reopen the machine gun registry?   

That would make it more interesting.  I don't like paying the $200 tax stamp, but if they are truly going for passing a new bill, go for more than that.

[WLJ]

After the Dems are back in control of it all......

The ballot printers are running full speed as we speak.

[230RN]

The ballot printers are running full speed as we speak.

Well, as a supply/demand/timing matter, they possibly are already, actually* but I guess you mean the ones that will be "discovered" when the counting in November starts to show a "non-liberal" majority, yes?

"But there's no proof of voting fraud!"

To that, I say:

1.There is no proof without evidence.
2. There is no evidence without investigation.
3. There is no investigation without suspicion.
4. But suspicion without proof is paranoia, so shut up, you paranoid conservative.

They wrapped all that up in a nice little package, right?

Terry, 230RN

* Or at least in terms of lining up printing contractors and settling on formatting.  i don't know how that works and how it might differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  "Well, we've got 12,825 voters in our county, so get ready to print out 38,000 or so ballots.  Could you deliver them to the Party Headquarters by September 20th?"

.... I'm not so sure that's a funny joke.....

[MechAg94]

Well, as a supply/demand/timing matter, they possibly are already, actually* but I guess you mean the ones that will be "discovered" when the counting in November starts to show a "non-liberal" majority, yes?

"But there's no proof of voting fraud!"

To that, I say:

1.There is no proof without evidence.
2. There is no evidence without investigation.
3. There is no investigation without suspicion.
4. But suspicion without proof is paranoia, so shut up, you paranoid conservative.

They wrapped all that up in a nice little package, right?

Terry, 230RN

* Or at least in terms of lining up printing contractors and settling on formatting.  i don't know how that works and how it might differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  "Well, we've got 12,825 voters in our county, so get ready to print out 38,000 or so ballots.  Could you deliver them to the Party Headquarters by September 20th?"

.... I'm not so sure that's a funny joke.....

I think I heard Georgia was going to require water marked and serial numbered ballots.  The serial number seems like one of the better ideas I have heard.  At least the voting machine scanners could be set up to log that number with every vote.  At least force cheaters to do more than just re-run the same ballots.  It is absurd how easy it is to cheat in some states.

[Pb]

Does this act reopen the machine gun registry?   

no

[230RN]

Does this act reopen the machine gun registry?   

That would make it more interesting.  I don't like paying the $200 tax stamp, but if they are truly going for passing a new bill, go for more than that.

We are so habituated to the requirements of the NFA (et alia) that we no longer question things like a machine gun registry --open or closed.

"...go for more than that"  is unclear.

Did you mean go for more than the $200, or go for more relaxations of the requirements?

Put the reader's head on your shoulders.

Terry, 230RN

[MechAg94]

We are so habituated to the requirements of the NFA (et alia) that we no longer question things like a machine gun registry --open or closed.

"...go for more than that"  is unclear.

Did you mean go for more than the $200, or go for more relaxations of the requirements?

Put the reader's head on your shoulders.

Terry, 230RN

I meant if they actually thought they had the votes to pass something like this, why stop at just that?  Why not tack on other pro-gun changes.  The other idea that occurs to me is if something like this is introduced, the language is not there to add it to future omnibus bills (not likely with current R leadership). 

On the other hand, I saw a video mentioning past court decisions made a big deal about the fact that it was a "tax".  Take away the tax part and that legal justification for NFA is undermined.  Food for thought.

Bill to Eliminate the NFA Tax: This is Important
The VSO Gun Channel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r68zW41I0g0

[Pb]

I meant if they actually thought they had the votes to pass something like this, why stop at just that?  Why not tack on other pro-gun changes. 

The large majority of the GOP in Congress isn't pro-gun at all.  They are pro-status quo.

The last major pro-gun legislation that actually got into law was the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), in 2005.

[MechAg94]

The large majority of the GOP in Congress isn't pro-gun at all.  They are pro-status quo.

The last major pro-gun legislation that actually got into law was the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), in 2005.

Understood.  That is why I don't get to excited about laws introduced. 

John Cornyn (Senator-TX) does that crap nearly every year and never has any intention of them passing.  He has been sucking up to the weak GOP leadership for years now. 

[230RN]

The large majority of the GOP in Congress isn't pro-gun at all.  They are pro-status quo.

The last major pro-gun legislation that actually got into law was the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), in 2005.

Amen.  There are too many incentives to think in terms of one's own benefit in keeping the boat from rocking --rather than the benefit to the country.

One of the major incentives is "retirement benefits," which usually go along with even relatively minor political office.

Not to mention medical benefits for higher-ups such as Representatives and Senators.

The key is "getting re-elected."

This all adds to the motivation to "do something even though it may be meaningless."  (I might also mention here the benefits of saying "I also sponsored" some BS legislation that "looks good" to specific voter factions.)

The disadvantages of strict term limiting are obvious, but I still think that idea ought to be implemented in many cases.  I mean, after all, the Presidency is limited for good reasons, why not for more public officials?

Terry, 230RN