Biden gun tax


Via Alison XJ Rhoads.

Such a law would require that I pay a lot more than $3,600.

Enforcement of such a law would cost the enforcers a lot more than the dollars collected.


16 thoughts on “Biden gun tax

  1. Their are people who own six semi-automatics, and only two mags per gun? That’s ludicrous. Lemme see here, I’d owe…. Yeah, not gonna happen.

    And why is 10 the magic number, and not 9 or 11?
    Oh, that’s right. They DO have magical thinking, and because it’s the first two-digit number, it must be important.
    Insane, evil-possessed, low IQ nut-jobs.

    It is within the realm of possibility that the Dems might manage to steal the election. It’s not within the realm of possibility they will win it fairly with a legit count of honest and legal votes properly cast.

    (I’m not a big fan of constitutional amendments, but I’d certainly support one that clarified and required tightening up the voting process, security, requirements, and eligibility that the states had to implement)

    • Re the voters rolls, flush and re-register every two years to match the House election cycle. Don’t just do it once only to have the rolls start cluttering up again, that just lets the same problem come back.

      • Agree with everything stated above, but with the number of people now eligible to vote it should take place over two days. It would lessen wait times and lines. Sometimes life happens and making it a one day thing can make it very difficult.

  2. It isn’t a $200 tax per firearm- it’s much worse. Biden wants to declare that all semi-auto firearms, as well as magazines holding more than 10 rounds, are Title II firearms, meaning that they would each have to be registered under the NFA, just like machine guns. To me, the cost of this is far more than the $200 cost to register each one.
    Congress would then have to simply defund the registration office, or simply pass a law saying that the registry is closed, and goodbye to every semi-auto firearm.
    Biden hopes to do to semi-autos what the Democrats already did to machine guns- take them out of common use.

  3. Given the current wait for a tax stamp, even leaving aside the magazine registration issue it would take on the order of a decade – at the present rate – to get the current estimated count of ARs “legally registered.”

    That right there should be a non-starter just from a logistics standpoint. (It should be a non-starter for far more fundamental reasons, of course.)

    • That’s not a bug, that’s a feature.
      A decade to flush out all the semi-auto firearms and register them with the State, and in the meantime, your rifles and pistols are not registered and your tax has not been paid. Would your pending paperwork be sufficient to keep you out of jail if you drew the attention of the police for any reason that resulted in examining your guns? Can you take them out and use them in that time?
      Would a law like this cause the BATFE to rule that since double action revolvers fire with each pull of the trigger until the gun is empty it is a semi auto pistol with a different sort of magazine?
      The trouble with rhetorical questions is that we already know the answers.

  4. If one intended to “register” anything.

    Of course the change in mindset once you embark on that path is significant both in practice and theory. One, you’ve probably decided that your willing to chance being charged with multiple felonies if you are compromised, two, you’ve crossed a significant bridge in deciding that you’re no longer recognizing the authority of the Federal Government. That doesn’t even touch on the individual States which may decide to refuse to accept these new laws.

    Jeff B.

  5. Sorry. You’ve just hit my limit, my stopping point, my point of no return.

    I will not register anything. That is my line in the sand; at that point, I am a criminal.

    I will not comply. Nor will I pay any “tax” on exercising a constitutional right.

  6. An evil enemy, will burn his own nation to the ground…. Just to rule over the ashes.
    Sun Tzu.
    It appears, BOHICA is the future…….Again.
    The biggest problem I see is not in the making of 10’s of millions into felons over night. It’s in those same felons deciding to act like felons. Just not enough law enforcement to go around.
    We don’t know nothing about no stinking taxes!

  7. $3600 wouldn’t even get all of my semi-auto rifles let alone my magazines. That would be a five figure check. Comfortably five figures. Even if they only registered magazines at $5 each as AOWs I’d be writing a check for over $1000 just for boxes with springs. At $200 each my magazines alone would buy me a new car.

    Go ahead and tell someone with a Ruger 10/22 or a Ruger RPR that that their 15 round plinking magazines or the new Glock 17 owner with their two 17 round magazines just added $200 per magazine to the cost of ownership. In a just world the politician saying this with a straight face would be tarred and feathered on the spot.

    I have one NFA item. By choice because the Hearing Protection Act sits in a desk drawer. I challenge the Democrats to put common Title I firearms under Title II and have them enforce it. Go right ahead. Try. These people don’t know what they would be unleashing in civil disobedience.

  8. I don’t currently own any semi-automatics.

    But I have in the past, and I might again in the future. And I don’t believe there is supposed to be a registry. So, if I were to purchase any, how would they know if I had any?

    • Our tech provides the capability to implement 1984 in ways that are far beyond what was imagined by Orwell. So far, we are not using that capability to control our population, but if Congress passes a $200 per gun tax, what’s to stop them from using that tech to identify who purchased guns?

      • Then they would have to admit they were breaking their own laws, in open court.

        Usually they prefer to drop the case, rather than do that.

        The tax issue complicates matters a lot, because for tax purposes the 5A essentially doesn’t apply.

        This proposition has a lot of potential to get interesting.

        • In anti-gun courts they would uphold the breaking of one law to enforce another as being permissible under “rational basis” scrutiny because…guns.

          You are using the term “interesting” in the same way I do when it comes to politics as in “never want to experience the Chinese definition in my lifetime”. I want to read about history, not become a participant or footnote in it for future generations to study.

Comments are closed.