To those of you who are interested in the "facts", here is the NRA President's testimony before Congress regarding the NFA. You be the judge of whether they "opposed passage".
Sorry it's so long, but facts usually aren't as convenient as soundbites. This is only a blurb, the THR only allows 20k characters, which is about 20% of the transcript. The full testimony can be found at the link:
NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT
==========================
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SEVENTY-THIRD CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 9066
__________
APRIL 16, 18, AND MAY 14, 15, AND 16, 1934
58278
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON: 1934
STATEMENT OF KARL T, FREDERICK, PRESIDENT NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, 128 BROADWAY, NEW YORK CITY
Mr. FREDERICK. My name is Karl T. Frederick, 128 Broadway, New York.
I think the General has sufficiently indicated, unless some of you wish me to elaborate upon it, my representation and background. I have been giving this subject of firearms regulations study and consideration over a period of 15 years, and the suggestions resulting from that study of mine and the people with whom I have been associated, such as the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform Laws, have resulted in the adoption in many States of regulatory provisions suggested by us. [emphasis added]
As General Reckord indicated, the national act for the District of Columbia is the uniform firearms act which was first drafted by me about 14 years ago, and which was, in that early time, brought to the attention of the National Conference of Commissioners of Uniform Laws, who appointed a subcommittee under the chairmanship of Mr. Imlay, who is here, and which gave about 7 years of study to the matter; which produced the most extensive and thoroughgoing investigation of the subject of firearms control that has ever been made by anybody in this country; and resulted, after successive
revisions, in the final form of the uniform act which has been, as I say, adopted by the Congress for the District of Columbia.
It is the law in Pennsylvania. It has been the Law in California for many years. Portions of it are to be found in New York, New Jersey, Indiana, New Hampshire, and many other States.
This subject is a subject to which a large amount of careful and intensive thought has been given. I must, however, apologize to your committee if, as I anticipate, the remarks which I have to make with respect to this particular bill appear to be somewhat disconnected and not presented with the logical form with which I would otherwise desire to present them. The reason for that is that since I arrived this morning on the night train I have for the first time seen the bill. I have had earlier bills which were first presented in the Senate and I have had some typewritten notes with respect to some prospective contents of a bill which was supposed or expected shortly to appear in the House.
My consideration has, therefore, been almost wholly based upon that earlier and somewhat scrappy information which has come to me; because, as I say, this printed bill I have seen for the first time this morning.
As General Reckord said, we regret that we are forced to appear without having had an opportunity to completely formulate our views. We had expected that we would be, as he said, informed as to the proposals emanating concretely from the Attorney General's office. But, apart from the conference which I had with General Reckord and with Mr. Keenan about 2 1/2 months ago, and apart from a courteous letter of acknowledgement of certain information which I sent to him about 6 weeks ago, I have had no information whatever with respect to their proposals from the Attorney General's office.
I will come immediately to certain concrete criticisms which I think should properly be made of this bill, and in the course of my remarks I shall be glad to attempt to answer any questions any of you desire to address to me, and I may from to time branch out a little bit into consideration of the more general features of such legislation which underlie the entire subject.
The first criticism that I have to make is on page 1, lines 8 to 10. The definition of the term "machine gun" I think is wholly inadequate and unsatisfactory. A gun which fires automatically or semiautomatically less than 12 shots is not under this definition a machine gun. And yet, in my opinion, it is in fact a machine gun and should be so classified.
The well known Thompson submachine gun which has figured in the papers extensively; the so-called "Browning" automatic rifle or the Monitor rifle, which is a somewhat similar weapon designed for police use, are both in fact capable of being operated automatically and semiautomatically. The number of shots which they may discharge is dependent solely on the size or the content of the magazine and if you use those guns with magazines holding only 11 shots they would not be, within the terms of this bill, a machine gun.
Mr. WOODRUFF. Will you yield for a question there?
Mr. FREDERICK. Certainly.
Mr. WOODRUFF. As a matter of fact, the only thing that controls or limits the number of shots that an automatic rifle or shotgun can fire is the magazine itself, is it not?
Mr. FREDERICK. I think that is correct.
Mr. WOODRUFF. That is the only way in which you can limit the number of shots that can be fired. And it is a very simple matter, is it not, to change the magazine or the clip or whatever they use to hold these cartridges, to meet any restrictions, particularly restrictions such as are proposed in the paragraph at the bottom of the first page of this bill?
Mr. FREDERICK. In general, that is true. I propose, however, to suggest a definition of machine gun which I think obviates your objection.
Mr. WOODRUFF. I will say that my position is exactly the same as the gentleman's in regard to this paragraph. I am in perfect harmony with you on this.
Mr. FREDERICK. And which I venture to suggest will lay before you a more concrete definition of what is a machine gun.
Mr. FREAR. Will you please give it? That is what we trying to get.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question before the witness proceeds to do that?
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cooper.
Mr. COOPER. The guns to which you have referred, how many of those are now manufactured with the type of magazine mentioned by you, firing less than 12 shots?
Mr. FREDERICK. I cannot answer your question, I do not know. But I say that it would be a perfectly simple thing for smaller magazines to be prepared.
Mr. COOPER. I understand you say that it is possible for such type of a weapon to be constructed, but I am asking you what the situation is now with reference to the manufacture and sale of the type of weapon to which you refer.
Mr. FREDERICK. I cannot answer that, because I do not know. The definition which I suggest is this:
[“]A machine gun or submachine gun as used in this act means any firearm by whatever name known, loaded or unloaded, which shoots automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.[”]
The distinguishing feature of a machine gun is that by a single pull of the trigger the gun continues to fire as long as there is any ammunition in the belt or in the magazine. Other guns require a separate pull of the trigger for every shot fired, and such guns are not properly designated as machine guns. A gun, however, which is capable of firing more than one shot by a single pull of the trigger, a single function of the trigger, is properly regarded, in my opinion, as a machine gun.
Mr. HILL. May I ask you a question there?
Mr. FREDERICK. Yes, sir.
Mr. HILL. Suppose your definition were adopted. Would it be practicable to manufacture a gun that would be classed either as an automatic or semiautomatically operated gun, even with more than one function of the trigger, and still answer the purpose, in a large way, of a machine gun which requires only one function of the trigger?
Mr. FREDERICK. I do not think so. For purposes of example, you may look at the automatic pistol which is the standard weapon of the United States Army. That has an automatic discharge of the empty cartridge and a reloading principle which is operated by the
force of the gas from the exploded cartridge. But with a single pull of the trigger only one shot is fired. You must release the trigger and pull it again for the second shot to be fired. You can keep firing that as fast as you can pull your trigger. But that is not properly a machine gun and in point of effectiveness any gun so operated will be very much less effective than one which pours out a stream of bullets with a single pull and as a perfect stream.
Mr. HILL. In one sense you are limiting the scope of this definition and in another you are broadening it. When you say that any weapon or any gun that will shoot more than once is a machine gun, you are broadening the definition. But when you say "one operation of the trigger" you may be limiting the definition as it is in this bill, as I see it, because this says nothing about what operation of the trigger is necessary to constitute the machine gun.
Mr. FREDERICK. If I understand your remark, Mr. Hill, I think that is quite true. I am including within the definition, however, everything that I think is a machine gun instead of including only those machine guns which fire 12 or more shots without reloading.
Mr. HILL. The point I am making is, why include in your definition the phrase, "with one function of the trigger"?
Mr. FREDERICK. Because that is the essence of a machine gun. Otherwise you have the ordinary repeating rifle. You have the ordinary shotgun which is in no sense and never has been thought of as a machine gun.
Mr. FREAR. You are attempting to cover more than is embodied in this bill?
Mr. FREDERICK. I am trying to bring within this everything that in my opinion should be included under the term "machine gun."
Mr. FREAR. That would he desirable.
Mr. FREDERICK. I should not like, if there is to be legislation with respect to machine guns, to have machine guns capable of firing up to 12 shots exempted from the operations of this bill.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. Frederick, under your proposed definition, would the Colt automatic pistol be a machine gun?
Mr. FREDERICK. No, sir. I do not think that in the eyes of any ballistic engineer it would be so regarded. I do not think it should be so regarded.
Mr. COCHRAN. Does not the Colt automatic pistol continue to shoot as long as you exert pressure upon the trigger?
Mr. FREDERICK. No, sir. It requires a separate pull of the trigger for every shot fired.
Mr. HILL. If the Colt automatic pistol could fire 12 times, would it be a machine gun under this definition in the bill?
Mr. FREDERICK. Under the definition as printed in the bill?
Mr. HILL. Yes.
Mr. FREDERICK. I do not know what the language means, "automatically or semiautomatically." The language is not, as I read it, and from my limited knowledge of firearms and ballistics - which has some scope, but I do not pretend to be a finished master in that; I am a lawyer, I am not a firearms manufacturer - I do not know what “automatically or semiautomatically" means. There are automatic features about the Colt pistol in the sense that when a shot is fired the action of the gas not only expels the bullet from one
end of the barrel, but it expels the empty shell from the other end, and it is so devised that upon the return of the carriage through a spring, it puts another shell in place of the old one. That is in a sense automatic, and that principle is found in machine guns. But that is not the distinguishing features of a machine gun.
Mr. FREAR. The question in my mind and I think in the majority of the committee is what we can do to aid in suppressing violations by such men as Dillinger and others. Do you think that by your proposed amendment you have aided in that result?
Mr. FREDERICK. I believe so.
Mr. FREAR. Then what is the purpose of any longer discussing that? Why not go on to something else?
Mr. FREDERICK. If none of you gentlemen desires to discuss that particular feature –
Mr. FREAR. You are a lawyer, you are not a firearms manufacturer, as you have said. Let us assume that we accept your proposed suggestion. I suggest that we pass it and get to the other serious questions that are involved in the bill.
Mr. FREDERICK. Another objection which appears to me to be serious is that there appears to be no distinction - I do not know what figures it is intended to insert on page 3 in the matter of taxes or licenses, but it would seem that it was intended to insert a single figure.
Mr. HILL. What line?
Mr. FREDERICK. I am speaking of line 5, page 3.
Mr. HILL. It has been suggested that in the first blank you insert $5,000 and in the second blank $200. That is only a suggestion.
Mr. FREDERICK. There is, as I see it, no provision made in the act for the jobber, who is the general distributor to dealers of pistols. It seems to me that from the little I know of the manner in which the business is conducted, because I have not and never have had any connection with the business of firearms - as I understand it, the jobber plays an essential part in the firearms business. I understand that it would be quite impossible for the manufacturer to pass upon the credit questions and the other matters which arise, as between the ultimate dealer and his supplier. It has suggested itself to my mind that one of the purposes of this bill was to destroy the jobber and to eliminate all but the largest and the wealthiest and the strongest individual dealers.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean dealers or manufacturers?
Mr. FREDERICK. I mean dealers. I think an annual fee of $200 a year will eliminate 95 percent of the dealers in pistols.
Mr. LEWIS. What is your definition of dealer? What does it include? Does it include the village storekeeper who sells pistols?
Mr. FREDERICK. Yes, sir.
Mr. HILL. The definition is on page 2, beginning with line 11: “The term dealer means any person not a manufacturer or importer engaged within the continental United States in the business of selling firearms. The term ‘dealer’ shall include pawn brokers and dealers in used firearms.” That would include jobbers, I take it.
Mr. FREDERICK. It is possible, but the jobber does not fit very logically into the picture that is here define.
Mr. FREAR. If we insert that, would that be sufficient to meet your objection? That is, after the words "pawn brokers and dealers" add
Mr. FREDERICK. I would have to examine the bill in order to give a really intelligent answer to your question.
Mr. FREAR. Can you give us a constructive amendment?
Mr. FREDERICK. I must again refer you to the fact that this is the first morning I have seen this particular bill, and I am not prepared to give you that particular suggestion. But I think that provision ought to be made for the jobber and I think that provision ought to be made so that this will not destroy 95 percent of the small dealers throughout the country.
Mr. FREAR. On what do you base that statement?
Mr. FREDERICK. A tax, I say, of $200 per year will eliminate 95 percent of the dealers, in my opinion.
Mr. FREAR. On what is your opinion based?
Mr. FREDERICK. My general experience and practical contact with dealers, and observation of those who deal in firearms and such things, over a good many years.
Mr. HILL. What figure would you suggest?
Mr. FREDERICK. That takes me into the purposes of this bill. This bill, as I see it, is intended to be a bill for the suppression of crime and is proposed to the United States Congress which ordinarily has no power in such matters, under the guise of a revenue raising bill.
Mr. FREAR. May I ask a question? Are you interested at all in arms manufacturing or anything like that?
Mr. FREDERICK. Not at all, in any way.
Mr. FREAR. They why not offer some constructive criticism? You are complaining about the character of the bill, suggesting what is behind it, the motives behind it, and so forth. Why not offer something constructive that will be helpful to us anywhere along the line?
Mr. FREDERICK. I am try to do so, as rapidly as I can.
Mr. FREAR. If you will read your record, you will find, I understand, that you are attacking the motives generally.
Mr. FREDERICK. Not at all. I am saying that this bill, practically speaking, destroys the business in firearms of 95 percent of the dealers.
Mr. FREAR. Then why not recommend something, as Mr. Hill has suggested?
Mr. FREDERICK. I shall be glad to submit a recommendation in that respect, as soon as I have had a chance to examine it.
Mr. FREAR. Yes; but do not attack the motives for its introduction. We are not interested in that at this time.
Mr. FREDERICK. I think that the result of this provision here will be to deprive the rural inhabitant, the inhabitant of the small town, the inhabitant of the farm, of any opportunity to secure a weapon which he perhaps more than anyone else needs for his self-defense and protection. I think that it would be distinctly harmful to destroy the opportunity for self-defense of the ordinary man in the small community, where police forces are not adequate.
Mr. HILL. Just tell us how this bill does that.
Mr. FREDERICK. It does it in two or three ways, as I see it. In the first place, it requires Federal documents to be filled out, procured from Federal officials, before a pistol can be purchased. It requires
that pistol to be purchased from a licensed deader. Now, if the largest and most important and wealthiest dealers, those in the larger cities, are the only dealers to exist who can handle firearms, and if it is required to go to a Federal official who is not to be found readily in rural communities, in the country, in any except the larger communities - if they only are allowed to handle firearms, it seems to me that the practical result will be that the countryman absolutely will be unable, in a practical sense, to obtain any firearm. There are so many impediments put in his way. He will be unable to secure a weapon that he needs for his own defense and the defense of his home and family.
Mr. HILL. Do you have reference to the large license fee of $200 as suggested in line 51?
Mr. FREDERICK. I have at this moment, yes.
Mr. Hill. Suppose you made that fee $5, what would be the situation?
Mr. FREDERICK. I do not think that that would be as bad. I think it would be somewhat serious, but I do not think it would be very serious. I will tell you why I say that. The uniform firearms act which we sponsored and which was adopted in Pennsylvania had a provision for $10 license fee for dealers in that State. That law has been in effect in that State for 3 or 4 years. I am told that the practical result is that most of the small dealers, country hardware merchants, and so forth, refuse to take out a license and pay $10, because they say it just is not worth it. They sell maybe three or four guns a year and it is not worth $10 to get the privilege of selling three or four guns. I think that any substantial license fee will destroy the small dealer in the small community.
Mr. HILL. That is, any appreciable license fee?
Mr. FREDERICK. Any appreciable license fee for dealers.
Mr. HILL. Would the requirement for a license itself do that?
Mr. FREDERICK. I do not think so...
Full testimony here:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/NRA/NFA.htm
