https://townhall.com/columnists/isabellemorales/2020/10/30/beware-bidens-200-gun-tax-n2579054

Joe Biden would force semiautomatic rifle owners to either participate in a gun buyback program, or register their firearm under the National Firearms Act, which requires the payment of a $200 tax. This would extend to AR-15s and other common household rifles. Those who do not comply would face up to 10 years in federal prison, and a potential $10,000 fine.

Could he do this under an EO?

He can't do it without the cooperation of both the House and the Senate. The runoffs in GA are unbelievably important.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Keep on dreamin Joe Robinette

Prices are getting higher by the day now, maybe I’m gullible but the sky can’t be falling every day meaning I’m not buying all the talk about everything being said now. Trump said he was wiping out Obamacare to and it’s still in full effect. Just because one man has a dream it very well could turn into a nightmare for him and odds are will never come to pass. Maybe one day but not anytime soon imo

plus $200 for each mag that holds over 10rds

I've been stewing over this too. My thought is first, there is no way there will be an amendment change. Next, I'm just guessing/hoping that whether by Executive Order, or worse, a law change, the Supreme Court would strike it down.

EO = Lawsuits and getting to the Supreme Court = Fail. The law change I assume would require the Senate losing GA. So by EO or Law passed, if either of those two measures happen I would assume lawsuits would flood the system, with one or more making it to the Supreme Court and it would fail.

The question is...if he does this "what are you going to do as gun owners"?

Wolf or Sheep?

He will probably be able to restrict sales with an EO. Not sure what he’ll do for the already purchased guns/magazines.
What happened with the bump stocks does set a bad precedent though.

To many rifles have been privately sold for this to work, maybe on any future sales.

Scotus ruled californias small magazine law was unconstitutional. What makes you think anything joe and co would do to make everyday guns subject to federal tax would be considered unconstitutional?

Scotus understands the purpose of 2A, even if the majority of the country doesnt. Just read the opinion on the CA case and see they get it....

The SCOTUS rule was on a CA ban. Biden's plan would be not be a ban but rather a tax on mags. Current NFA stuff has already had tax paid.

Gun control act of 1934 made it legal to get machine guns out of our hands, keeping it “constitutional”. Did not know if they could move AR15s into that category easily?

C. What guns?

Also if it "happens" I'm buying a 3D printer and printing as many as I can "turn in"

Great idea! *UCK those liberals.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms ===> shall not be infringed

What are all the Antifa and BLM supporters going to say when he goes after their guns with this tax.

The scotus would rule this tax to be onerous to properly execute our 2A...its like having a tax to vote or a tax to express our religious freedoms. To simply own a semiauto gun and be taxed for it is not going to hold up. Thats the reason i brought up the CA case, the scotus ruled because they understand the ”why” of the 2A. This gives me great hope the scotus would rule any tax on the majority of guns, or a tax that would turn over half the population into lawbreakers for simply owning something they have had, would be ruled unconstitutional. The concept is flawed and would be called to the table as flawed by scotus.

ya think? This is just starting. Wait until they get harris in the oval office.

$10,000 fine for not doing it will take care of privately sold issue.

buy what you need now ,just in case.

Let’s say homeboy does enact this metal retardation. As long as Texas is red it’ll be a sanctuary state, look at Virginia.

The sawed off shotguns, the silencers and the fully auto machineguns have had restrictions since the 1930's. All of that was first passed by Congress. That law's constitutionality has also been run through the courts multiple times. It still stands after all of these years. Even the Clinton era ban was upheld in court, and more than once.

It is my understanding that a high capacity magazine ban law has not made it to the SCOTUS as of yet. The law in CA was found to be unconstitutional by a judge and then appealed to the 9th circuit court of appeals. The hearing at the 9th circuit was not of the full court but just a panel of three judges that up held the lower judge’s ruling. At this time it is in the state of CA hands as to what they want to do request a hearing before the full 9th circuit court or appeal to the SCOTUS. If they request a full hearing before the 9th circuit court and the court rules against them the the CA law is no longer in effect and the ruling applies to all states under the 9th circuit court jurisdiction. At that point CA has to decide to appeal to the SCOTUS and they will decide whether to take the case or not.

There are high capacity magazine laws in other states such as NY and the city of NY that are still standing. The 2nd court of appeals up held the high capacity ban in the state of NY. That’s what makes CA decision interesting to have a full court hearing or appeal to the SCOTUS and let them decide as you would then have two Circuit courts with opposing decisions on Constitutionality.