I hope Clarence Thomas gets a chance to weigh in on all this nonsense.
New ATF proposals
- Thread starter walnutred
- Start date
deadin
US Veteran
This is probably a good part of it. All of those Capital Gains that the gvmt wants their share of. (I also didn't see any mention of Capital Losses.....) It's going to be interesting just how this will be administered. I know in my case I have just a few less that 100 guns and am in the process of changing the focus of my collection. I also do not have any idea how much I paid for a good number of them. Many have been in my possesion for 30 or so years. As I sell/trade off my current collection to pay for my new interests I do not have receipts to claim capital gains/losses. About a third of them are antiques so not affected by the proposed rule changes and the rest are C&R's which may or may not be affected. There is no requirement currently that amount paid is reportable, nor is there any facility for retaining this information.
It's going to be another can of worms.....
Yes, by all means blame me if that makes you feel better, but you might offer a little less vitriol in your replies.
Always remember: Gun control in NOT about guns. Its about CONTROL.
Those who seek to ban guns will NEVER be satisfied. They are determined. They are patient. They see every movement in their direction as a win. They NEVER compromise (unless only getting half of what they want NOW is a compromise). They operate under the "death by a thousand cuts" philosophy. They will not let truth or facts stand in their way.
They NEVER compromise and if some of us do, ALL of us lose.
Those who seek to ban guns will NEVER be satisfied. They are determined. They are patient. They see every movement in their direction as a win. They NEVER compromise (unless only getting half of what they want NOW is a compromise). They operate under the "death by a thousand cuts" philosophy. They will not let truth or facts stand in their way.
They NEVER compromise and if some of us do, ALL of us lose.
Bingo! There was a time where I believed that there should be controls of things that, in my eyes, are unnecessary and don’t affect my specialized area of expertise and collecting. Like bumpstocks. Don’t need them. Don’t need AR15s, in fact, I really don’t need anything manufactured after WWII. It doesn’t interest me. But that’s selfish. That’s also advocating control, and once you control one thing, the folks that controlled that one thing become empowered and then want to control more…and even more.
If the controlling powers that be would be content with controlling bumpstocks and leave it at that…we’ll not even maybe, as they are never content with just that. Which is why you can’t control anything. Plus, it’s unconstitutional as the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and control, no matter how minor, is unconstitutional.
Wow. So you only own hunting firearms...
National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is an excellent source of what is going on with firearms regulations without the political crud you get from TV.
NSSF Submits Public Comments Against Biden Administration Proposed ‘Engaged in the Business’ Rule • NSSF
NSSF Submits Public Comments Against Biden Administration Proposed ‘Engaged in the Business’ Rule • NSSF
Last edited:
LVSteve
Member
My beef with this "engaged in business" stuff is that somebody wishing or needing to divest themselves of a fair number of guns in a short space of time will be assumed to be "conducting business". Somebody who needs money to cover medical bills, or has decided to thin the herd dramatically because of moving house is not even close to being in business.
Bah. I should be able to buy a full-auto Thompson through the mail.
We did just fine before the NFA etc, etc. and we'd do just fine without it.
We did just fine before the NFA etc, etc. and we'd do just fine without it.
You have a valid point.
The Second Amendment:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The inability to purchase a fully automatic weapon and receive it by mail sure sounds like infringement to me.
However, what NEED does the average citizen have for a fully automatic weapon? But that’s a completely different discussion whatsoever and it seems that it’s unconstitutional to question one’s needs and desires when it comes to firearms, as that’s infringement.
Maybe, maybe not. I worked in Bosnia for a couple of years; they had strict gun control leftover from the Communist Era. Once there was war between military and civilian elements, oppressed civilians armed themselves from the bodies of military they killed by any number of means. They did so routinely, and became quite good at it.
Exactly. Rights do not entail "needs".
Similar threads
