Cheese and Guns in the UK

[natman]

In the US, President Roosevelt was running out of revenue sources to fund his various and sundry programs, so taxing the heck out of certain firearms-related stuff made sense. Hence the NFA.

I seriously doubt that NFA fees have ever generated enough revenue to be a molecule of a drop of water in the vast ocean of the federal budget.

It is a shame that sound moderation is viewed with such a slanted perspective in the US, but it's not an NFA item in order to generate money for the Federal Government.

 

[MEATSAW]

Austin has great cheese stores? Interesting. I shouldn't be surprised, but HEB cheese is just soo good!

 

[Lark]

I can not remember ever hearing a suppressor being used in the commission of a crime in the U.S.

I never heard of it either until I got a look at the crime data a guy was collecting to support easing restrictions on their use in WA. He was only able to find ten cases where silencers were seized in the state, one was associated with a murder, the rest were crude examples seized during unrelated matters. None were registered as far as he would tell. It took several years but the law was changed and now the military, police and civilians can use silencers on their guns in WA.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Not to divert but in Austin for cheese:

Go to Antonellis on 43rd and Duval, or the Central Market and Whole Foods on Lamar.

Gun related - stop at McBrides on Lamar and look at guns. One needs cheese for the strength to do gun related items.

One great regret - I went to the Polite Society one year when the American Cheese Society had it's annual meeting and it was in Austin. Oh, no!

I will do the food stores, Book People, the Sci-fi/anime/comic store on Lamar, McBrides and then go Lamar further for the Asian Market and then GT Distributores on Brodie. Quite the shopping spree!

 

[Nickel Plated]

Actually silencers were not added tot he NFA because of some assassin paranoia. You just have to look at when the NFA was passed. During the great depression. When people had no food they turned to poaching. Silencers made that alot easier to do without getting caught. So they were banned.

I guess when the antis claim the 2A is anachronistic and invalid because it was written 240 years ago and "The founding fathers couldn't foresee"
We can reverse that on them. Silencers were banned almost 80 years ago. Things were different then. The government couldn't foresee all the food we would have nowadays and nobody would need to poach. Unban them

 

[Evan Thomas]

The government couldn't foresee all the food we would have nowadays and nobody would need to poach.

This isn't a very sound argument: "we" have a lot of food nowadays, but it doesn't necessarily reach the people who need it. Poverty and hunger have increased in the US over the past few years. Over 15% of rural households are "food insecure" (the current euphemism for not having enough to eat). Not that they're all out there poaching, but that motivation is still there for many people.

I'd also question whether poachers worry too much about the niceties of the NFA, but that's another discussion entirely.

 

[Falcon5NZ]

NZ suppressors

Just as a comparison this is the "Worlds Largest Dedicated Gunshop" based in Christchurch, in the South Island of New Zealand. They are known to be a bit over priced, and the most expensive suppressor is about US$630. As mentioned they are over the counter items. Oh and US$4300 Hydramatic M-16's

 

[gc70]

Silencers -or mufflers as they were often referred to at the time- seem to have been a standing item on the anti-gun agenda of the day that was tossed in the NFA with substantially no discussion.

Here is a bit of background from the National Firearms Act hearings before the Committee On Ways And Means of the House of Representatives, April 16, 1934.

Regarding revenue, since the NFA is in part a tax act.

Attorney General Cummings: I am informed that, under existing law, there is an ad valorem 10-percent tax on pistols and revolvers and that this law produced $35,388 in the fiscal year 1933. This existing law, if the pending bill should pass, will become inoperative so far as it imposes a tax on firearms included the proposed legislation. So we shall have to take into account the fact that with the passage of this bill there will disappear most if not all of that $35,000, but it will reappear in a larger measure under the taxing provisions and the licensing provisions that we would have in this act.

Mr. Cooper: I would be glad if you could give us your estimate of the revenue to be yielded from these various items suggested by you.
Attorney General Cummings: Well it probably would approach $100,000.
Mr. Cooper: All or them together would approach, in your opinion, about $100,000 a year?
Attorney General Cummings: Yes, sir.

Bearing in mind that the original NFA bill called for a tax on transfers and a license to transport across state lines, the following interchange is revealing.

Mr. McClintic: I would like to ask just one question. I am very much interested in this subject. What in your opinion would be the constitutionality of a provision added to this bill which would require registration, on the part of those who now own the type or class of weapons that are included in this bill?
Attorney General Cummings: We were afraid of that, sir.
Mr. McClintic: Afraid it would conflict with State laws?
Attorney General Cummings: I am afraid it would be unconstitutional.

Finally, a summary of the theory behind the NFA.

Attorney General Cummings: I think that it does two crucial things. It deals with the tracing of these weapons if traded or transferred after this act goes into effect; it deals with the requirement of licensing if a person is to take any weapon across State lines. And I am assuming in all this, of course, that the criminal elements are not going to obtain permits and they are not going to obtain licenses, and they are not going to be able to bring themselves within those protective requirements. Therefore, when we capture one of those people, we have simply a plain question to propound to him - where is your license; where is your permit? If he cannot show it, we have got him and his weapons and we do not have to go through an elaborate trial, with all kinds of complicated questions arising. That is the theory of the bill.