Joe Biden’s Gun Agenda Could Cost AR-15 Owners $3.6 Billion in Taxes for Guns They Already Own

Reptile

NES Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
27,652
Likes
19,913
Feedback: 121 / 0 / 0
Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden’s proposed gun control policy includes a provision that could require every AR-15 rifle be registered under the National Firearms Act of 1934. Unless there were some form of carve-out, this could mandate that American gun owners pay a $200 federal tax per AR-15 that they own. The National Rifle Association’s Andrew Arulanandam told Breitbart News that the current “low end” estimate of privately-owned AR-15s in the United States is 18 million. A tax of $200 on 18 million AR-15s means that gun owners could potentially be required to a pay a collective $3.6 billion in taxes, if this policy were enacted into legislation.


I'm sure the gun owning populace will go right along with this.
 
Serious question:
If forced to register via NFA is this de facto permission to SBR?

To be clear I’m wholly against this, just curious as to the mechanics if it does happen.

Interesting question. My best guess is probably not because they’ll find some way to eff gun owners.
 
Joe Biden’s Gun Agenda Could Cost AR-15 Owners $3.6 Billion in Taxes for Guns They Already Own

AR-U-KIDN-ME...?
 
Serious question:
If forced to register via NFA is this de facto permission to SBR?

To be clear I’m wholly against this, just curious as to the mechanics if it does happen.

Interesting question. My best guess is probably not because they’ll find some way to eff gun owners.

I mentioned this in the Honey Badger thread.

Currently ATF is scrutinizing braces, like they want to put the genie back in the bottle.

I was pointing out if this election goes south and you really value the short barrel stuff, it may be time to pull the trigger and SBR your pistols.

Basically the power play I see is if their attention is tipped to suppressors and SBR's, they do what was done with machine guns in 86, no more new ones. If ATF reinterprets braces too, those pistols become a lot less interesting with no relief available.

Now honestly I don't think even with control of the federal government the grabbers will quite get to NFA'ing our semi autos, is kinda like Republicans and making suppressors parts or reciprocal carry. And if they did they are honestly so inept I think they would fail to note the potential for hoards of new SBR's..

But my guess if NFA for semi autos occurred it would be different than the previous process somehow, ie too much paperwork for them to get done and too many angry voters energized. I think more likely it becomes some type of declaration/registration/tax with only transfers requiring the whole application process: ie step 1 ban new production, step 2 pin down what is legal and who has them (collect billions in bullshit tax), step 3 track & control the chain of possession (collect more bullshit tax), step 4 confiscation.
 
Last edited:
I mentioned this in the Honey Badger thread.

Currently ATF is scrutinizing braces, like they want to put the genie back in the bottle.

You're basically engaging in mindless speculation based off of a one-off incident... there's a backstory to the Q thing that we haven't been told yet. Pistol braces becoming a thing was the's ATF "fault "to begin with... on at least two different determinations. It's quite obvious that it was pretty intentional to allow pistol braces to be used as ad hoc stocks. I think Q pissed off the feds or one of his competitors whined to the feds and basically said "hey his thing doesn't comply with this invisible requirement that we all have tacitly agreed exists". Just because there's a manufacturer purse fight going on doesn't necessarily mean that some kind of wholesale legal review of pistol braces is happening within the ATF. The cat is way too far out of the bag at this point.
 
You're basically engaging in mindless speculation based off of a one-off incident... there's a backstory to the Q thing that we haven't been told yet. Pistol braces becoming a thing was the's ATF "fault "to begin with... on at least two different determinations. It's quite obvious that it was pretty intentional to allow pistol braces to be used as ad hoc stocks. I think Q pissed off the feds or one of his competitors whined to the feds and basically said "hey his thing doesn't comply with this invisible requirement that we all have tacitly agreed exists". Just because there's a manufacturer purse fight going on doesn't necessarily mean that some kind of wholesale legal review of pistol braces is happening within the ATF. The cat is way too far out of the bag at this point.

Back in the spring I remember seeing some rumblings about the ATF and braces being threatened. One article to that affect:


Yes I agree the honey badger is just one corner case thing and I also understand brace design has been pushed a lot, so its possible only some small set of the latest more complex designs triggered some scrutiny.

As we have seen ATF interpretation can change very quickly. If the political landscape changes we could be one presidential order away from the ATF telling us we must remove and dispose of such accessories IMO.
 
I think we should test this out. How about in the next 10 days we all send one letter per AR that we may or may not own to the BATFE. See if they even have a room big enough to hold all that mail. Then we can talk processing and such.
 
It is part of (planned??) incrementalism:

Step 1: Force owners to neuter property without turning it in (Atkins Accellerator)
Step 2: Force owners who have a not too expensive and very uncommon item to turn it in without compensation (bump stock)
Step 3: Similar to step #2, but target a widely sold product marketed by reputable first tier brands
Step 4: Similar to step #3, but target more expensive items at the edge of mainstream
Step 5: Target mainstream common products now that "surrender without compensation" has ample precedent.
 
Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden’s proposed gun control policy includes a provision that could require every AR-15 rifle be registered under the National Firearms Act of 1934. Unless there were some form of carve-out, this could mandate that American gun owners pay a $200 federal tax per AR-15 that they own. The National Rifle Association’s Andrew Arulanandam told Breitbart News that the current “low end” estimate of privately-owned AR-15s in the United States is 18 million. A tax of $200 on 18 million AR-15s means that gun owners could potentially be required to a pay a collective $3.6 billion in taxes, if this policy were enacted into legislation.


I'm sure the gun owning populace will go right along with this.
You're assuming, of course, that what is now a one time fee will not be changed to a license that must be renewed periodically, like the LTC.
 
You're assuming, of course, that what is now a one time fee will not be changed to a license that must be renewed periodically, like the LTC.

Much depends on whether the administration tries to shaft us administratively through rulemaking, or by actually passing a new law through congress. Also whether we keep a 2A friendly majority on the USSC.

Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden’s proposed gun control policy includes a provision that could require every AR-15 rifle be registered under the National Firearms Act of 1934. Unless there were some form of carve-out, this could mandate that American gun owners pay a $200 federal tax per AR-15 that they own.

Might not be a taxable event, there are multiple precedents.

Most recently, when ATF unilaterally reclassified the Striker-12/Streetsweeper as destructive devices under the National Firearms Act (NFA), the owners of reclassified "shotguns" were given a window to register these newly-NFA-eligible items without paying the tax:
BATFE said:
Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 7805(b), ATF. Ruls. 94-1 and 94-2 were issued prospectively with respect to the making, transfer, and special (occupational) taxes imposed by the NFA. Thus, although the classification of the three shotguns as NFA weapons was retroactive, the prospective application of the tax provisions allowed registration without payment of tax. ATF has contacted all purchasers of record of the shotguns to advise them of the classification of the weapons as destructive devices and that the weapons must be registered. ATF has registered approximately 8,200 of these weapons to date.

So has anybody taken a registered Streetsweeper and upped the caliber to 40mm, like the Milkor?
 
Back
Top Bottom