5 ms·

Relying on the sanity and/or consistency of government policy would keep me up at night.

by rhcom2 1y ago

mothballed 1y ago
I would sleep perfectly soundly if it relied on politicians not wanting the plebs they subjugate to have easier access to machine guns, which is what keeps their value up. As for current NFA items holder, the constitution requires them to be compensated fair value if they are to be confiscated. The risk is arguably lower than many single stocks, many of which are bought in retirement portfolio.
- mlyle 1y ago
  > As for current NFA items holder, the constitution requires them to be compensated fair value if they are to be confiscated. There's plenty of ways to not confiscate them but impair their value. Further restrictions on transfer, restrictions on use, disadvantaged tax treatment, requirements for storage, security, insurance, bonding, etc.
  - mothballed 1y ago
    The government has imposed most of those on gold at various times yet it continues to be a component of many investor portfolios.
    - mlyle 1y ago
      There's an international market in gold. NFA firearms have an artificially high value because of the exact set of legal restrictions that the government has put in place: loose enough to not crater legal demand, yet tight enough to restrict legal supply. This market is tied to within US borders. The government can destroy the assumptions behind this market with a stroke of the pen.
      - mothballed 1y ago
        The government can destroy the assumptions on which many businesses are built, that are held as stocks in an investment portfolio. Move the goalposts to relation to international markets, and I will likely find how it applies to some other asset commonly found in investment portfolios, like perhaps the current values of some tax preparation companies.
        mlyle 1y ago
        Your original assertion was "...by buying NFA machine guns knowing the number is capped and the price is likely to only go up" Later you said lower risk than many individual stocks. Maybe, maybe not depending on how we define things. But I do think it's quite possible for the price to go down.
        cindyllm 1y ago
        [dead]
- akerl_ 1y ago
  > As for current NFA items holder, the constitution requires them to be compensated fair value if they are to be confiscated. Where is that in the constitution?
  - mothballed 1y ago
    5th amendment
    - akerl_ 1y ago
      I think you may have to check the text again? The 5th amendment says you get due process, and requires compensation if something is taken for “public use”. Passing a law which you can challenge in court that says “machine guns are illegal now, turn them in so we can melt them down for scrap” is not public use.
      - mothballed 1y ago
        Taking it for the public smelting furnace for the state to melt down under the auspices of public safety is a public use.
        akerl_ 1y ago
        You can pretty clearly see this isn’t the case. Prior to the reversal of the bump stock ban, owners of bump stocks were required to surrender or destroy them.
        mothballed 1y ago
        That's because the state argued they were unregistered machine guns, thus never legally held property. It is not at all comparable to legal, stamped machine guns then being made illegal. The EO couldn't have forced an uncompensated surrender of a registered bump stock, were it one existed before the Hughes Amendment.
agentcoops 1y ago
I mean, I think they’ve proven over the last century that the single thing they’re good at is protecting the regular payment of dividends (and of course buybacks more recently)… One might not be entirely mistaken to compare expecting much more than that from the modern state to expecting Valve to protect your skin investments.

Relying on the sanity and/or consistency of government policy would keep me up at night.

by rhcom2 1y ago

Relying on the sanity and/or consistency of government policy would keep me up at night.

I would sleep perfectly soundly if it relied on politicians not wanting the plebs they subjugate to have easier access to machine guns, which is what keeps their value up. As for current NFA items holder, the constitution requires them to be compensated fair value if they are to be confiscated. The risk is arguably lower than many single stocks, many of which are bought in retirement portfolio.

mlyle 1y ago
> As for current NFA items holder, the constitution requires them to be compensated fair value if they are to be confiscated. There's plenty of ways to not confiscate them but impair their value. Further restrictions on transfer, restrictions on use, disadvantaged tax treatment, requirements for storage, security, insurance, bonding, etc.
- mothballed 1y ago
  The government has imposed most of those on gold at various times yet it continues to be a component of many investor portfolios.
  - mlyle 1y ago
    There's an international market in gold. NFA firearms have an artificially high value because of the exact set of legal restrictions that the government has put in place: loose enough to not crater legal demand, yet tight enough to restrict legal supply. This market is tied to within US borders. The government can destroy the assumptions behind this market with a stroke of the pen.
    - mothballed 1y ago
      The government can destroy the assumptions on which many businesses are built, that are held as stocks in an investment portfolio. Move the goalposts to relation to international markets, and I will likely find how it applies to some other asset commonly found in investment portfolios, like perhaps the current values of some tax preparation companies.
      - mlyle 1y ago
        Your original assertion was "...by buying NFA machine guns knowing the number is capped and the price is likely to only go up" Later you said lower risk than many individual stocks. Maybe, maybe not depending on how we define things. But I do think it's quite possible for the price to go down.
      - cindyllm 1y ago
        [dead]
akerl_ 1y ago
> As for current NFA items holder, the constitution requires them to be compensated fair value if they are to be confiscated. Where is that in the constitution?
- mothballed 1y ago
  5th amendment
  - akerl_ 1y ago
    I think you may have to check the text again? The 5th amendment says you get due process, and requires compensation if something is taken for “public use”. Passing a law which you can challenge in court that says “machine guns are illegal now, turn them in so we can melt them down for scrap” is not public use.
    - mothballed 1y ago
      Taking it for the public smelting furnace for the state to melt down under the auspices of public safety is a public use.
      - akerl_ 1y ago
        You can pretty clearly see this isn’t the case. Prior to the reversal of the bump stock ban, owners of bump stocks were required to surrender or destroy them.
        mothballed 1y ago
        That's because the state argued they were unregistered machine guns, thus never legally held property. It is not at all comparable to legal, stamped machine guns then being made illegal. The EO couldn't have forced an uncompensated surrender of a registered bump stock, were it one existed before the Hughes Amendment.

agentcoops 1y ago

I mean, I think they’ve proven over the last century that the single thing they’re good at is protecting the regular payment of dividends (and of course buybacks more recently)… One might not be entirely mistaken to compare expecting much more than that from the modern state to expecting Valve to protect your skin investments.