NFA Stamp Revoked?

[FortTom]

I currently own no weapons that require a NFA stamp. But an interesting question popped up today. With all that's going on in the "Gun Violence" debate, the question came up, can the government revoke your stamp tax for NFA weapons without cause?

This seems to have crept under the radar as far as media, but I've not heard a single mention of NFA weapons, SBR, Burst Mode, Cans, anything? But someone brought up the question today, since the Gov't giveth, the Gov't can taketh away, or can they. If so, can they then, without the Congress, deem these firearms "illegal" and confiscate them? Wouldn't be too hard, theoretically, since they know all about the weapon, it's owner, location, etc.

Anyone here that in "tune" with the legalities of the whole subject that can speak on this?

Thanks, you'll make me look a lot smarter than I am, if I come up with the right answer...

FT.

[Vern1968]

From what I've read there are so few people assigned for issuing NFA tax stamp that they probably couldn't keep up with revoking any.

[Hmac]

The stamp just means that you've registered the frearm and paid the excise tax on its manufacture (if you made it) or its transfer to you f you bought it from someone else.

The government doesn't have to revoke the stamp or or registration, they can just make the weapon illegal, which is what they're trying to do based on Feinstein's bill's definition of an "assault weapon".

[FortTom]

The stamp just means that you've registered the frearm and paid the excise tax on its manufacture (if you made it) or its transfer to you f you bought it from someone else.

The government doesn't have to revoke the stamp or or registration, they can just make the weapon illegal, which is what they're trying to do based on Feinstein's bill's definition of an "assault weapon".

Yes, I understand her drivell, but I'm talking reality. She can campaign as long as she wants. I don't think that even the Dem's support her, due to her "sweeping" or massive leftist idea of elimnating opposition to her cause.
However, I go back to the previous question, can they "automatically" just say "hey Barrack, can we just say ....let's pull the NFA stamps" and get rid of those peskey little guys with the SBR's....
Even though I post this with tongue-in-cheek, I'm serious about the government "revoking" stamps....

FT.

[FortTom]

Hmac's first line covered it. The tax doesn't allow you to own it, per se, but rather was simply the fee paid to manufacture and/or register it. They could do anything they put their minds to, though, as legality hasn't been a major priority for some time now.

Wow, I hope not.....I can hear someone knocking on folks doors now...

FT

[Hmac]

Yes, I understand her drivell, but I'm talking reality. She can campaign as long as she wants. I don't think that even the Dem's support her, due to her "sweeping" or massive leftist idea of elimnating opposition to her cause.
However, I go back to the previous question, can they "automatically" just say "hey Barrack, can we just say ....let's pull the NFA stamps" and get rid of those peskey little guys with the SBR's....
Even though I post this with tongue-in-cheek, I'm serious about the government "revoking" stamps....

FT.

For BHO to do that, he'd have to decree that the National Firearms Act is null and void. AFAIK, that pretty much exceeds the scope of Executive Order.

Besides, Title II firearm registration is the most thorough background check available for firearm possession. In fact, one of Feinstein's original considerations was trying to move ALL "assault-style" weapons as she defines them to the NFA because of the enhanced background check that it implies.

IMHO, being under the NFA doesn't automatically make an AR-15 legal. It would still be illegal if it otherwise meets the definition contained in any kind of AWB (number of "evil features").

/

[todd.k]

I don't get it, and think people who don't bother reading the actual laws refrain from speculating on them.

The law requires tax paid to posses, tax was paid for the stamp. How could the stamp be revoked? Under what part of the law? If you don't turn in your gun what law will they charge you with violating?

[FortTom]

I don't get it, and think people who don't bother reading the actual laws refrain from speculating on them.

The law requires tax paid to posses, tax was paid for the stamp. How could the stamp be revoked? Under what part of the law? If you don't turn in your gun what law will they charge you with violating?

Go easy, man... didn't mean to rankle your feathers, I just asked a question, that I couldn't find an answer for.
FT

[todd.k]

OK. I think people should do a little more research on the actual law before posting opinions of what the President can or can't do. The law requires tax paid registration to posses, the tax was paid and the stamp is proof of the tax being paid.

A move like you describe would be great, because it wouldn't survive scrutiny under the 5th Amendment.

[FortTom]

OK. I think people should do a little more research on the actual law before posting opinions of what the President can or can't do. The law requires tax paid registration to posses, the tax was paid and the stamp is proof of the tax being paid.

A move like you describe would be great, because it wouldn't survive scrutiny under the 5th Amendment.

This thread would be easier to follow, if you'd indicate which post you're reply is aimed at. I haven't "described a move" about anything. I asked a question, at the begining of the thread. I had no idea, nor the resources to look up the law, or discern what would pass constitutional muster, e.g. the 5th Amendment. What "people" are you referring to? Did you actually read the thread, or are you just randomly picking parts of it, to reply to? I'll repeat for clairity. I didn't post an opinion, I asked a question. I didn't read the law, I wouldn't know where to start looking, and I'm not a SCOTUS justice, so I'd be a bit hesitant to interpret the 5th to determine something concerning a tax stamp.

Thanks,

FT

[todd.k]

The tax stamp is a receipt of the tax paid, so the idea of revoking a receipt is ridiculous unless all rule of law is thrown out. Short answer, NO.

A move like you describe would be great (deem these firearms "illegal" and confiscate them), because it wouldn't survive scrutiny under the 5th Amendment.

Making something illegal without Congress and then confiscating property would violate the 5th Amendment "Due Process Clause".

On top of that if people refused to surrender NFA firearms and would be arrested, what crime would they be charged with? As an example if you own a short barreled rifle without the tax paid registration you would be charged with a crime under the NFA law of possession of an unregistered SBR. The ATF can't send you up in front of a Judge and charge you with possession of a registered SBR.

[FortTom]

The tax stamp is a receipt of the tax paid, so the idea of revoking a receipt is ridiculous unless all rule of law is thrown out. Short answer, NO.



Making something illegal without Congress and then confiscating property would violate the 5th Amendment "Due Process Clause".

On top of that if people refused to surrender NFA firearms and would be arrested, what crime would they be charged with? As an example if you own a short barreled rifle without the tax paid registration you would be charged with a crime under the NFA law of possession of an unregistered SBR. The ATF can't send you up in front of a Judge and charge you with possession of a registered SBR.

Thanks, Todd. Now that makes perfect sense! Thank you for the clarification. Kudo's and a big thumbs up.
FT