Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Excise tax for a supressor- $ 6,333.00

Discussion in 'General Firearms Forum' started by SpectreRider, Aug 21, 2012.

  1. SpectreRider

    SpectreRider Armed Citizen

    When the excise tax was established in 1934, average income was $ 1506 per person. Two hundred dollars was 13.333% of a years income.

    The tax was intended to PROHIBIT private ownership of SBRs, "sawed-off" shotguns and silencers at a time that the government still recognized that the second ammendment meant that they could not be banned. No one was supposed to be willing to pay an exise tax that high.

    Over the years, inflation has reduced the exise tax from 200 dollars to.... 200 dollars... the amount never changed.... but the deterrent effect has.

    An amount that was once nearly seven weeks of pay for the average American now is earned in only nine hours. The deterrent effect of the tax has diminished to the point that we only gripe about paying the tax a little bit.

    If the Excise tax had been adjusted over the years to keep up with inflation, it would now be $ 6,333.00.

    I would expect that few of us would be willing to shell out that kind of money to aquire each supressor, SBR and SBS.

    I only bring this up because the National Firearms Act is well established law and sets precedent.

    So, the courts recently have been coming out with decisions that support gun rights- establishing that the government has limits to the laws they may make. But there is one right the courts have consistently upheld, the right of the government to tax.

    In conclusion, I would like to caution every American gun owner-

    Do not expect that the courts can protect your rights against a government determined to take away your rights through PROHIBITIVE TAXATION. The National Firearms Act of 1934 serves as the blueprint.

    Make sure that the Government we vote to establish is one that supports your right to Keep and Bear Arms.

    If not, we might get one that sees fit to allow us our guns, but at a very steep price.

    Anybody want a seven thousand dollar glock, excise tax included?
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2012
  2. The_Gun_Guru

    The_Gun_Guru Build the Wall

    That is very interesting....did not know that.

    You keep the Glock....:rofl:


  3. DonD


    Dec 21, 2001
    Central TX
    The OP is correct, we need to be careful that some unethical slug like Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, Lautenberg, McCarthy et all doesn't insert some inane rider to a bill that for example, lays a monstrous tax on ammo or components.

    if such a tax is high enough, it would effectively be a gun ban. Don't think there is enough support in Congress for such action but vigilance is necessary. There again, the NRA is our best buffer against anti gun garbage. Don
  4. SpectreRider

    SpectreRider Armed Citizen

    The courts have ruled that a tax like a sales tax must be uniform across different products. Classes of items may be exempled from tax- food/groceries are in many places, but a class of products; eg. ammunition must be taxed at the same rate as other products.

    An exise tax is different. Guns, with their very clear legal definition and individual serial numbers are the perfect type of product to place an excise tax on.

    And Don, you are right, there is not the support in congress for such a tax at this time. I am not even worried that the composition of congress could change enough in two or four years to see such a tax created, but after that, who knows.

    The country has been drifting left for nearly a century. A couple more decades could well be enough to see the end to even the illusion that we are a free people.
  5. alexanderg23


    May 13, 2009
    NW AR
    Kind of a side note, but I saw 9mm ammo at Academy specifically for suppressors. I think it was there for other. Calibers as well, made me think dang there must be alot of suppressors. I can't remember the name, but it was an all black box and said suppressor specific.

    It was HPR whatever that is.
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2012
  6. SpectreRider

    SpectreRider Armed Citizen

    Yes, supressors are not nearly as effective on bullets traveling faster than the speed of sound. The bullet makes a sonic boom along the entire path of travel until it slows to less than the speed of sound.

    Supressor specific ammo is designed to exit the barrel at a speed just under the speed of sound. With no sonic boom and much of the sound at the muzzle muffled a supressor can ruduce the noise of a gunshot by approx 30 decibels.
  7. alexanderg23


    May 13, 2009
    NW AR
    I hear ya there, that's why I run Hornady 225gr BTHP w/ Trail Boss in my 308 thru my can.
  8. WoodenPlank

    WoodenPlank Who?

    May 15, 2010
    NW Florida
    The NFA was originally proposed to include handguns, as well. However, the politicians felt they couldn't get the support to pass the bll if it included them, so they were dropped from the final language.

    Can you imagine doing NFA paperwork and a $200 tax every time you bought a pistol?
  9. Travclem

    Travclem Badass Member Lifetime Member

    Aug 4, 2008
    Lubbock, TX
    IMO the NFA is garbage and needs to be abolished.
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2012
  10. Lior


    Jul 23, 2004
    Interesting legal process there.
    I agree with the John Ross theory that the NFA was passed to give federal tax officers something new to enforce after Prohibition ended and to increase federal powers. His book, Unintended Consequences, contains an excellent paper about the NFA.

    There are not many governments that tax hearing protection.
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2012
  11. michael_b

    michael_b BRC #1492

    Sep 3, 2011
    How do you explain the higher taxes on things such as cigarettes, alcohol, etc. is that more of an excise tax?
  12. WoodenPlank

    WoodenPlank Who?

    May 15, 2010
    NW Florida
    I believe it is.