Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: History Lesson

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    I can't 'vet' the acccuracy of this information: I'm just quoting an on-line source. In any case, I thought some of the details from this history of our gun laws were interesting, especially the similarity between the National Firearms Act/Gun Control Act, etc.and Nazi gun control legislation, and the fact that the only murder ever (indeed, the only reported crime) with a legally owned and registered machine gun was committed by a Dayton, Ohio cop (why am I not surprised)...

    Anyway, here's the link: http://stason.org/TULARC/society/pro-guns/99-APPENDIX-I-The-Biggest-Myths-of-Gun-Control-A-Look.html

    Comments?

    -ljp

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    I recall the machine gun control act started back in the 1930s and was because organized crime was using them to kill each other.

    The link you provided did not provide me with anything useful to review.

    It is well known that only ONE registered machine gun was used to murder someone and it happened to be owned by a cop. Can you tell me how many unregistered machine guns have been used by civilians and used in murders?

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    SNIP Can you tell me how many unregistered machine guns have been used by civilians and used in murders?
    Wouldn'tthis just prove that registering machine guns is useless because criminals won't register them?

    Wouldn't it be a violation of the 5th Amendment to require them to register their machine guns?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Wouldn'tthis just prove that registering machine guns is useless because criminals won't register them?
    That's okay, we'll just pass another law making it illegal to disobey the law.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    SNIP Can you tell me how many unregistered machine guns have been used by civilians and used in murders?
    Wouldn'tthis just prove that registering machine guns is useless because criminals won't register them?

    Wouldn't it be a violation of the 5th Amendment to require them to register their machine guns?
    You have missed the point..... Figures.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    SNIP Can you tell me how many unregistered machine guns have been used by civilians and used in murders?
    Wouldn'tthis just prove that registering machine guns is useless because criminals won't register them?

    Wouldn't it be a violation of the 5th Amendment to require them to register their machine guns?
    You have missed the point..... Figures.
    Oh, alright. (yawn) If you insist. (yawn).

    I knew what your point was.

    I just couldn't figure out why a skilled...um...discussion-ist would put forth such an easily defeated argument.

    By the way, the info I have is that the Feds in the 1930's wanted machine guns registered because they knew the gangsters would never register them, making it easier to prosecute them for something, since they were so adept at evading other, usual LE methods. As opposed to registering them because the gangsters were using them to kill. I'm open to other info, though.

    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    registered because they knew the gangsters would never register them, making it easier to prosecute them for something, since they were so adept at evading other, usual LE methods. As opposed to registering them because the gangsters were using them to kill. I'm open to other info, though.
    I thought it was to give out-of-work prohibition agents something to do.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Oh, alright. (yawn) If you insist. (yawn).

    I knew what your point was.

    I just couldn't figure out why a skilled...um...discussion-ist would put forth such an easily defeated argument.

    By the way, the info I have is that the Feds in the 1930's wanted machine guns registered because they knew the gangsters would never register them, making it easier to prosecute them for something, since they were so adept at evading other, usual LE methods. As opposed to registering them because the gangsters were using them to kill. I'm open to other info, though.
    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)...





  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    SNIP
    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?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Snipped..... You understand that everyone on the forum can go back and compare your "just chatting" remark to your question about "how many machine guns..."?

    ...snipped
    Yawn!!!!!!

    I too am growing tired... You are up to your same old antics and it bores me.

    You are looking for "One more fight left" and I am herefor opendiscuss on various topics. You need to get over it and curb your desire to "fight" with me.

    I know it must bring you tears of joy to prove or try to prove me"wrong" instead of providing information to help me better understand a topic. But this is the way you are and you refuse to change.

    Adding Citizen into the ignore list along with Doug.






  11. #11
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    I recall the machine gun control act started back in the 1930s and was because organized crime was using them to kill each other.

    The link you provided did not provide me with anything useful to review.

    It is well known that only ONE registered machine gun was used to murder someone and it happened to be owned by a cop. Can you tell me how many unregistered machine guns have been used by civilians and used in murders?
    I beg to differ with you LEO 229. The gun control act started because FDR did not support the constitution. He was the father of the nanny state, and routinely exceeded his constitutional authority, and ignored court rulings that tried to confine his abuse of power.

    The registered, or not registered, illegal use of machine guns is an irrelevant factoid. The real issue is the gross abuse of the constitution that the NFA perpetuates. Remember that the entire premise of the NFA was regulation of interstate commerce.


    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    I beg to differ with you LEO 229. The gun control act started because FDR did not support the constitution. He was the father of the nanny state, and routinely exceeded his constitutional authority, and ignored court rulings that tried to confine his abuse of power.

    The registered, or not registered, illegal use of machine guns is an irrelevant factoid. The real issue is the gross abuse of the constitution that the NFA perpetuates. Remember that the entire premise of the NFA was regulation of interstate commerce.
    So you are saying that even if machine guns were being used to kill the competition.. the government was going to regulate and tax them anyway?

    Why not ALL guns?

    Obviously it is a rather coincidental that this 1934 NFA act was done right after the gangsters started using machine guns to shoot each other. But it appears this was just a "good reason" to do it and purely by chance?


    1926 - Machine Guns marketed to civilians

    1929 - St Valentines Day massacre

    1934 - Machine guns are regulated items.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    My "why am I not surprised" remark was a jab against Dayton particularly and not cops generally (that particular department has "issues" certainly). The city is in need of thermonuclear sterilization.

    -ljp

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Legba wrote:
    My "why am I not surprised" remark was a jab against Dayton particularly and not cops generally (that particular department has "issues" certainly). The city is in need of thermonuclear sterilization.

    -ljp
    Thanks for the clarification... you can see that it does not read that way to some.. well.. to me.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    Perhaps... if it makes you feel better, I'll relate my last experience with law enforcement. I got stopped for speeding and having a light out the other night. The cop explained that some chick had sped through the very spot where I was stopped - she was going an estimated 110mph - and wiped out into a used car lot. She took out 3 or 4 displayed cars and destroyed her own. It took over an hour to get her body out of her own car. So, they were doing a zero-tolerance speed trap because of it.

    I thanked the guy for his concern and for informing me about the light. He wrote out the ticket and I was on my way. None of the "why are you here? what are you up to? who are you with and why? can we search your car? why not? what are you hiding? This is a high-crime area and we know what you're up to" complete with arbitary detention and improper search and maybe threats etc. - all the ******** that I *certainly* would have run up against in Dayton.

    So - don't assume everything is necessarily a slam on an entire class of people. I'm not unreasonable in the complaints that I do make. I just thought it ironic that the one instance of malfeasance with an otherwise legal machine gun was concerning my favorite municipal police department. Sadly, I fear he's not the only rotten apple in that lot anyway, even 20 years after that incident.

    -ljp

  16. #16
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    In 1933 FDR was elected. I tend to agree with Thundar that this is a main cause of the NFA.

    He decided it was the role of the Federal Government to regulate every aspect of life, and persued the goal of expanding the Federal Government until his death. He used the great depression as an excuse, but today long past the depression we still suffer the effects of his greatly expanded government.He created multitudes offederal government agencies. Some of theregulatory agencies created under FDR allowed him to basically create regulations without the help of congress due to the ability to make executive orders. He also tried to add more supreme court justices because he was upset that the current court kept considering his bills unconstitutional. It sure is a good thing that he failed. He would have had virtually dictatorial power. The NFA was just one of his many reforms and intrusions of the government. If he could have he would have regulated everything. This is also the President that decided all Japanese Americans should be put in internment camps.

    It should be no surprise that the NFA comes out of the midst of his presidency considering the vast amount of regulation, socialist programs, etc. that he created. He thought the Federal Government was the solution to all problems suffered by the people.

    Was it created to stop gangsters? Maybe so. Even if that was the intent, that doesn't mean it succeeded (or that it was right). In my personal opinion, the majority of the things FDR did just made things worse.


  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    I am not that big on history and work with what I know. Maybe FDR did some wacky stuff...

    But what I said is still true if only in part.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    I quoted US vs Dalton in a post above:

    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 don't understand why the Attorney General was testifying on this Bill. The law was for the Treasury Department. Its a tax law. Unless he was being asked to testify on a Constitionality question.

    With regard to making machine guns hard for gangsters to get, there is another aspect. IfCongress just wanted to make machine guns harder for gangsters to get, why didn't Congress just misuse their Commerce Clause power to regulate them rather than misuse their taxing authority to regulate? Why not just say crooks engaged in crooking can't crook with a machine gun.

    Heh, heh, heh. And offer an amnesty if they crook another crook by typing all over him.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Felid`Maximus wrote:
    In 1933 FDR was elected. I tend to agree with Thundar that this is a main cause of the NFA.

    He decided it was the role of the Federal Government to regulate every aspect of life, and persued the goal of expanding the Federal Government until his death. He used the great depression as an excuse, but today long past the depression we still suffer the effects of his greatly expanded government.He created multitudes offederal government agencies. Some of theregulatory agencies created under FDR allowed him to basically create regulations without the help of congress due to the ability to make executive orders. He also tried to add more supreme court justices because he was upset that the current court kept considering his bills unconstitutional. It sure is a good thing that he failed. He would have had virtually dictatorial power. The NFA was just one of his many reforms and intrusions of the government. If he could have he would have regulated everything. This is also the President that decided all Japanese Americans should be put in internment camps.

    It should be no surprise that the NFA comes out of the midst of his presidency considering the vast amount of regulation, socialist programs, etc. that he created. He thought the Federal Government was the solution to all problems suffered by the people.

    Was it created to stop gangsters? Maybe so. Even if that was the intent, that doesn't mean it succeeded (or that it was right). In my personal opinion, the majority of the things FDR did just made things worse.
    I wonder if there's more to FDR and the NFA.

    Like maybe Elliot Ness-types saying they can't catch the crooks with the tools they've got so they need some more.

    I guess the real question is who started it off with the first request? And what was that idea?

    Was the sequence from the President down,the FBI or Treasury agent up, or somebody in the middle?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  20. #20
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    Citizen, I could be wrong, but I believe the call for the NFA originated from someone in FDR's administration. I'm not certain it was FDR himself, but FDR can be quoted as supporting it and pushing it forward.



    LEO 229 wrote:

    Why not ALL guns?
    Also, I think the NFA wanted to regulate concealable weapons as well as machineguns. Thats why there are the provisions for short barreled rifles and short barreled shotguns. In an earlier draft it was to put handguns under the same regulations too, but they removed that because they didn't think it could pass. Basically, the continuation of the SBR laws is a leftover remnant from the modified concealable weapon regulation.


    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled], That for the purposes of this act the term “firearm” means a pistol, revolver, shotgun having a barrel less than sixteen inches in length, or any other firearm capable of being concealed on the person, a muffler or silencer therefor, or a machine gun. “(H.R. 9066, 73d-Cong. 2d sess.)


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •