A Law In Alaska That Would Be Good For Pennsylvania

[Fudmottin]

I sent the following e-mail to my state senator and representative regarding "The Making" tax Form-1 peeps must pay even though their firearms are not necessarily even used in Interstate Commerce. The letter contains a link to the law that Alaska is considering. SilencerTalk has some discussion of it.

Subject: A Law In Alaska That Would Be Good For Pennsylvania
Date: May 2, 2009 3:18:57 PM EDT
To: sbarrar@pahousegop.com, dpileggi@pasen.gov

Dear Sirs,

I am a single issue voter on 2nd Amendment rights. I vote at most primaries and every general election. I would like to pass this on for your consideration. Alaska is developing legislation that will be good for Alaska in relation to the "Making Tax" of the National Firearms Act (NFA) and Gun Control Act (GCA).

Briefly, this "Making Tax" is a $200 or $5 tax with substantial bureaucracy involved that is charged when an individual wishes to manufacture a Title II firearm (legal in PA). No Interstate Commerce is actually involved in such manufacture. Yet a lot of hoops have to be cleared for the BATFE NFA branch to rubber stamp a Form-1 application.

Such firearms are not used in crime. Silencers, one of the Title II covered items, are not even firearms. They are mere accessories that reduce, but do not eliminate, the muzzle report from a firearm. An increase in popularity of these devices would make firing ranges that see increased housing development nearby less objectionable.

The laws I'm bringing to your attention are little understood by the general public. So I am including a couple references for your staff to research:

The Pennsylvania Firearm Owner's Association Discussion Forum:

http://forum.pafoa.org/

With attention to:

http://forum.pafoa.org/nfa-class-3-title-ii-34/

The NFA Handbook published by the BATFE:

http://www.atf.gov/press/2009press/0...ok-updated.htm
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/nfa_handbook/index.htm

Chapter 6 is the relevant part for this mail.

A book by a leading silencer authority:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0873649095

This book covers some legal history.

And, finally, Alaska's proposed law:

http://www.legis.state.ak.us/PDF/26/Bills/HB0186C.PDF

It is my hope that PA will enact a similar law to protect Commonwealth Citizens who see their US and PA constitutional rights under fire on a regular basis.

Thank you,

I am hoping that people here will write similar letters to their senators and representatives in Harrisburg. This is just an initial grass roots effort to try and improve our current situation under the NFA + GCA. It can't hurt to try, right?

Another tack I would like to try is taking on the "Making Tax" in the judicial system. That one would require a bit more than a simple e-mail campaign.

[knight0334]

Needs edited. All "making" is $200. The transfer of an already manufactured AOW is $5.

[Fudmottin]

Did I screw that up? Nuts.

That would be an extra headache for making a working replica of the gun used by Scaramango (sp?) in The Man With The Golden Gun.

Although the point of the letter is that the tax should not be required at all.

I'll keep this in mind when I draft a letter to my Congressman about trying to repeal the NFA + GCA.

The NRA has no interest. It is time to organize a grass roots effort.

I was thinking of creating an organization called Gun Free America (if that name isn't taken) with the precise goal of getting rid of all federal gun control laws with special attention to the NFA and GCA. I don't know if PACs can be non-profits or not. I'll be asking an NFA lawyer when I get to setting up my NFA trust.

There is a lot of other research that needs doing. On my part I mean.

Bottom line. I want the NFA + GCA gone. Either through congress or the courts. It has to go. Forever.

[Shawn.L]

so then Alaska is following Montana's lead, cool
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

[MuzzleFlash]

Needs edited. All "making" is $200. The transfer of an already manufactured AOW is $5.

So if I have a 2 liter plastic bottle, it costs $200 to punch a hole in it. If there's already a hole in it, it's $5?

I think I would somehow make "SUCH FIREARMS ARE NOT USED IN CRIME" stand out a bit more through repetition or bold print. I'm all for it and the first thing I noticed was the evil idea of making silencers, barely noticing the "not used in crime" part. I'm not sure senators would give it the courtesy of a second read after the silencer comments scare them away.

[mojo]

So if I have a 2 liter plastic bottle, it costs $200 to punch a hole in it. If there's already a hole in it, it's $5?

silencers are not considered an AOW (Any Other Weapon). Your main categories are:

1. Machine Guns (MG)
2. Short Barreled Rifles (SBR)
3. Short Barreled Shotguns (SBS)
4. Suppressors
5. Destructive Devices (DD)
6. Any other weapon (AOW)

Categories 1-5: Cost to manufacture = $200. Cost to transfer = $200
Category 6: Cost to manufacture = $200 ( I think ). Cost to transfer = $5

So if you registered a plastic bottle as a suppressor and paid your $200. If you sold it, the transfer would be $200.

[SigForLife]

silencers are not considered an AOW (Any Other Weapon). Your main categories are:

1. Machine Guns (MG)
2. Short Barreled Rifles (SBR)
3. Short Barreled Shotguns (SBS)
4. Suppressors
5. Destructive Devices (DD)
6. Any other weapon (AOW)

Categories 1-5: Cost to manufacture = $200. Cost to transfer = $200
Category 6: Cost to manufacture = $200 ( I think ). Cost to transfer = $5

So if you registered a plastic bottle as a suppressor and paid your $200. If you sold it, the transfer would be $200.

Correct, except, I believe a licensed manufacturer (Type 02 FFL) can make a AOW for free (not exactly free since he paid his tax for his Type 02 FFL) but he can than transfer it to you for $5. Thus, especially during the AWB, people would have their 02 FFL turn their weapon into a AOW, register it, charge the person like $50 plus the $5 transfer, and it would get around the AWB and the person only paid $55 instead of $200.

[ungawa]

That's interesting. None of that stuff was legal where I lived so I missed a lot of that history.

[Steelblitz]

The Alaska bill spells out fairly well what they consider interstate commerce with regards to manufacturing a firearm. It would be nice to see similar legislation proposed here at home. Yet, there are many unanswered questions and potential repucussions with these types of bills, I guess we'll find out when Montana's law becomes active in the Fall.

With regards to the letter in the original post, "No Interstate Commerce is actually involved in such manufacture", I beg to differ and state that most manufacturing of firearms today does involve interstate commerce. Most of us who has put together an SBR for example, had parts of it that were manufactured and purchased from other states. I know my SBR that was approved last week doesnt have one part made in PA on it. I'm not referencing to the raw materials which Alaska claims is exempt, but finished components seem to fall under interstate commerce even in Alaska's bill. So if the actual tranformation of the raw components into the final product is not done entirely within the state, interstate commerce is involved.

I do plan to keep hounding my rep. and sen. on this issue though. I also take this topic from another angle of job creation within the state. Mentioning firearms up front doesnt win over those on the fence very quickly, but if you can persuade them on the economic positives that will come about with the creation of new PA businesses, you'll have an easier time winning some people over. It's all politics.

[mojo]

Guarantee that if these laws are passed and up held, there would be gun manufactures popping up all over the place.