Well, if you know about a law and decide to break it, that's your business I suppose. Hopefully, you're a law abiding citizen who doesnt get search warrants executed on their property often. I'm sure of that. But criminals who attract the law may not be so lucky.
The same thing goes with people who make moonshine over in South Carolina. My grand father knew about them, we always had some around the holidays. It's a step in the right direction.
The difference of course is that the moonshine doesn't get fired at anyone. Still illegal though.
So then the only people that would be punished (and that is the basic intent of the tax in question -- a method of altering behavior) would be those who are of a law-abiding nature, and who are really not the problem.
I forget, weren't the guns used in Connecticut last month legally purchased?
If you can think of a method of keeping firearms out of the hands of those with violent intent in mind, I'm all ears. I just don't see the sort of registration being described as being anything other than counterproductive.
Lets look at your arsenal. I'm guessing 3,000 guns. If there was a tax on the 3,000 guns you purchased, maybe you'd purchase only 2,000 of them. So that is 1,000 guns that theoretically didn't get bought. So that is 1,000 guns less likely to be sold off after you croak. Translation; 1,000 less guns were sold so they don't find their ways into pawn shops, on the floor of the convention center.
If you wanted to buy a brand new 8-Track tape of the new Limp Bizkit album, you likely would have a hard time finding it. Why? They stopped producing them because nobody buys them any longer. Eventually, the decrease in sales will lead to the same decision made in the Smth and Wesson board room.