LEO 229 wrote:
Citizen, you are the one looking to defeat
people... not me. I am just chatting.
When I see people yarn it typically means they are feeling some stressat that moment. DoI make you nervous!
In 1926 the Thompson Submachine Gun is the most powerful weapon ever to hit the streets. It's invented ten years earlier by Brig. General John T. Thompson, a small arms specialist in the Army's Ordinance Department.By the time he gets his weapon into production, however, WWI is over. Too late for the war, Thompson markets the gun to the civilian population, and the gangs of prohibition Chicago adopt it as their weapon of choice.
It has been unlawful since 1934for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership.
To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the BATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.
The 1934 NFA act was clearly to stop the gangsters from having machine guns so easily. They had been using them to kill lots of people.
One very famous event was the Saint Valentine's Day massacre.
In the early 1990's a total of 16illegally owned machine guns were seized in Detroitin connection withnarcotics trafficking operations.
There was actually a second murder in 1992using a registered machine gun and this was by a Doctor (why am I not surprised)...
You understand that everyone on the forum can go back and compare your "just chatting" remark to your question about "how many machine guns..."?
I guess I'll have to get a less stressful mattress. I do a lot of yawning right after I wake up in the morning. Goddam thing probably attacks me in my sleep.
The yawns were to indicate boredom. But you knew that already.
But now its getting late, I'm tired. And cranky. So I'll fight with you a little bit.
If the St. Valentines Massacre (early 1929) had much to do with the NFA (1934) Congress and the Treasury Department were dragging their feet.
I still don't see how the NFA, from your post, was clearly intended to stop gangsters from having machine guns so easily. I went looking for some history on it.I only went a little ways down the first google return page. But, thanks for not doing it yourself. And thanks for not bothering to distinguish enough to answer my sincere question, or maybe not recognize that you hadn't. OK, I'm done fighting now.
Oops. Not quite. One more fight left. You'll notice below that I posted a link to my source. You should do the same. Unless of course you'recopying a San Diego lawyer's website'sgeneralized statements, instead of a court opinion, in a feeble attempt to bolster an argumentfavoring police being able toTerry pat-down anyone they detain, even beyond those they don'thave reasonable suspicion of being both armedand presently dangerous. What on earth prompted you to post that and rely on that as a source, anyway? You didn't happen to find such a court opinion, yet, did you? OK, now I'm done fighting. I'm sincerely interested to read such an opinion. Sincerely because I want to know what the case law says on it.
I did come across something interesting.Its from a case named, US vs Dalton.It even touches on my earlier comment about the registration requirement being, in certain circumstances, a violationof the 5th Amendment. Its also interesting forwhat seems abald-faced admission ofgovernment over-reach. But lets focus on the intent of the NFA:http://tinyurl.com/3eh3ed
In reaching this conclusion, the court looked to the legislative history of the Act, which clearly evinces Congress's intent that the Act regulate machineguns through a proper exercise of the taxing power rather than by banning manufacture and sale outright. The court quoted testimony to that effect from then Attorney General Homer S. Cummings, who
"explained in detail how the [Act] would be based on the tax power. Cummings denied that machineguns could be banned, because 'we have no inherent police power to go into certain localities and deal with local crime. It is only when we can reach those things under ... the power of taxation that we can act.' "
I can see how it can be assumed that the intent was to make it difficult for gangsters to get machine guns, but that doesn'tmake sense to me because gangsterscouldignore the law to get a machine gun as easily as a criminal of today can ignore the law to get a handgun. Especially with what seems, to me, a full market of unregistered machine guns onthe day before the law went into effect. "What the heck, Guido, just run around buying up all the machine guns you can get your hands on before they get registered. That ought to last us through the next few gang wars."
The then-Attorney General testified: "It is only when we can reach those things under...the power of taxation that we can act." Making machine guns difficult to obtain requires no action. Its a passive thing. Just affect the market and sit back and watch the gangsters work harder to get their guns. He wanted to act. It looks to me like the NFA was a creative way around Constitutional restrictions to arrange things so they had legal cause toprosecute gangsters. "Great! No stamp! Gotcha!" It seems to me that Congress useda regulatorymechanism to create a legal situation wherein federal agents could have another tool to arrest gangsters.
So, I'm not convinced the law was intended to keep machine guns out of gangsters hands. I agree it had to do with gangsters. That I can plainly see, and already knew. Its the part about make-it-hard that was new to me. I already hadgive-us-another-reason-to-arrest-gangsters.
As to government over-reach, the then-Attorney General testified "we have no inherent police power to go into certain localities and deal with local crime." Well, that's just great. If you don't, maybe there is a reason. So why are youasking Congress to create a non-inherent police opportunity to go into localities and deal with local crime?