Hacker Neue

Preferences
rhcom2 parent
Relying on the sanity and/or consistency of government policy would keep me up at night.
mothballed
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
> 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
The government has imposed most of those on gold at various times yet it continues to be a component of many investor portfolios.
mlyle
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
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.
2 More Comments →
akerl_
> 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
5th amendment
akerl_
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
Taking it for the public smelting furnace for the state to melt down under the auspices of public safety is a public use.
5 More Comments →
agentcoops
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.

This item has no comments currently.

Keyboard Shortcuts

Story Lists

j
Next story
k
Previous story
Shift+j
Last story
Shift+k
First story
o Enter
Go to story URL
c
Go to comments
u
Go to author

Navigation

Shift+t
Go to top stories
Shift+n
Go to new stories
Shift+b
Go to best stories
Shift+a
Go to Ask HN
Shift+s
Go to Show HN

Miscellaneous

?
Show this modal