[Mr. Luddite]

On 11/3/2014 8:05 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 17:55:58 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

"It won't keep criminals from getting guns".
"It's another tax"
"Slippery slope"
"Data base for future confiscation of all firearms"
"Why should I pay a fee to a FFL"

They all sound accurate. I agree the fee is not that big right now but
the slippery slope is always taxes and fees.
What was the tax on a pack of cigarettes in the 60s? a dime?
In places where cigarettes are considered politically incorrect it is
well over $4 now.
Those tend to be the same places that think guns are politically
incorrect.
Confiscation will not be forced surrender, they could just tax "legal"
guns out of existence and the people who did not have any guns would
cheer them on.
NFA34 already established that exorbitant taxes were legal (The $200
for an NFA stamp is about $3500 in 2014 dollars) That doubled the
price of a Thompson SMG and was 10 times the price of a short barreled
shotgun or rifle.



The purpose of the NFA in 1934 was to effectively ban machine guns and
sawed off shotguns that were popular in the crime circles of the time.

It really had nothing to do with banning or taxing citizen's right to
own arms.