bushmaster1313
Member
Why did the government ban putting a stock on a pistol?
You would think that this would make the gun less concealable.
No venting please.
You would think that this would make the gun less concealable.
No venting please.
What was rationale against putting stock on pistol?
- Thread starter bushmaster1313
- Start date
- Status
Carter
Member
My guess of logic...
Then you have a short barreled rifle, and the government wanted rifles to be less concealable (which they are). Therefore, to prevent an oxymoron of the law they said no stocks on pistols.
But that'd just be the logical point.
Then you have a short barreled rifle, and the government wanted rifles to be less concealable (which they are). Therefore, to prevent an oxymoron of the law they said no stocks on pistols.
But that'd just be the logical point.
From what I understand, the NFA as we know it is a mish-mash of laws. The short-barrel stuff was part of the Act that banned handguns. But banning handguns was not going to happen, and probably would have been found to be a 2nd Amendment violation by the courts. That part was removed, but the short-barreled rifle and shotgun laws remained in the final bill.
That's what I understand, but I could be wrong. It's about the only way to make sense of the Act, though.
Clearly gun like this, chambered for flat-shooting centerfire rifle rounds, is more powerful and can be used, say, for a long-range assassination better than a .38 with a buttstock!
That's what I understand, but I could be wrong. It's about the only way to make sense of the Act, though.
Clearly gun like this, chambered for flat-shooting centerfire rifle rounds, is more powerful and can be used, say, for a long-range assassination better than a .38 with a buttstock!
In the 1930's criminals commonly used sawed off shotguns and rifles which could be concealed under a coat and also proved handy when firing from cars. The public generally considered these "sneaky guns" and "unsporting", so they were included in the NFA along with "nasty" machineguns, guns that appeared to be something else (also "sneaky") and silencers (more "sneakiness").
Of course, such concern for sportsmanship was not the logic driving FDR's Attorney General, Homer Cummings. He was simply an anti-gun lunatic (in fact a lunatic on several issues - his pictures show a cold, tight-lipped, humorless fanatic determined to eliminate all pleasure in the world). He was told that under the constitution the federal government could not simply ban guns so, with FDR's backing, he used the "interstate commerce" clause, along with the taxing power, to propose gun control in the form of heavy taxation on firearms and ammo transfers. IIRC, there would be a $5000 tax on machineguns, $2000 on handguns, $1000 on rifles, $500 on shotguns, $50 a round on pistol ammo, $20 on a rifle cartridge, $10 on a shotgun shell, and $1 on a .22 cartridge.
I may have the figures wrong, but you get the picture; remember, $2-$5 a day was an average wage at the time, so Cummings' intent was to simply stop all gun sales except to the very rich, like his boss, Roosevelt. The only part that got through Congress was the $200 tax and registration of machine guns and a few other items.
The proposed NFA was not a "mishmash"; it was a coherent and vicious attempt to bypass the Second Amendment and eliminate guns from American society. Many believe it was designed to allow FDR to impose a dictatorship without fear of opposition.
Jim
Of course, such concern for sportsmanship was not the logic driving FDR's Attorney General, Homer Cummings. He was simply an anti-gun lunatic (in fact a lunatic on several issues - his pictures show a cold, tight-lipped, humorless fanatic determined to eliminate all pleasure in the world). He was told that under the constitution the federal government could not simply ban guns so, with FDR's backing, he used the "interstate commerce" clause, along with the taxing power, to propose gun control in the form of heavy taxation on firearms and ammo transfers. IIRC, there would be a $5000 tax on machineguns, $2000 on handguns, $1000 on rifles, $500 on shotguns, $50 a round on pistol ammo, $20 on a rifle cartridge, $10 on a shotgun shell, and $1 on a .22 cartridge.
I may have the figures wrong, but you get the picture; remember, $2-$5 a day was an average wage at the time, so Cummings' intent was to simply stop all gun sales except to the very rich, like his boss, Roosevelt. The only part that got through Congress was the $200 tax and registration of machine guns and a few other items.
The proposed NFA was not a "mishmash"; it was a coherent and vicious attempt to bypass the Second Amendment and eliminate guns from American society. Many believe it was designed to allow FDR to impose a dictatorship without fear of opposition.
Jim
Last edited:
bushmaster1313
Member
I guess it is sort of like making it illegal to put a large collapsable stock on a semi auto that has a short fixed stock shorter than the collapsable at its shortest
Last edited:
General Geoff
Member
Long story short; the original draft of the NFA regulated all handguns. With the removal of most handguns from the purview of the legislation, half of the remaining language makes no logical sense.
Shadow 7D
Member
Please, don't disparage a nice quality hunting/target pistol
EVERYBODY knows it's Saturday night specials and EBR that are used in assassinations.....
Because somebody who had the power to decided that guns need categories and stocks on pistols must have confused them...
EVERYBODY knows it's Saturday night specials and EBR that are used in assassinations.....
Because somebody who had the power to decided that guns need categories and stocks on pistols must have confused them...
Without question, Jim is correct in his summation of Homer Cummings.
He supported the total prohibition of private firearms ownership.
Some might call him the father of the modern day anti-gun movement.
As to his overall personality........Jim is also correct.....he was a humorless, rigid man. (Interesting to note that he was married four times. An anecdotal point about his rigid and humorless personality.)
He was an anti gun extremist of the first order IMHO. Quite simply a very dangerous man IMHO.
ETA: IIRC, he was the Chairman of the Democratic Party for a time.
If he had had his way, the private ownership of firearms would have been prohibited by the NFA. He wanted an oppressive taxing scheme to accomplish his goal.
He supported the total prohibition of private firearms ownership.
Some might call him the father of the modern day anti-gun movement.
As to his overall personality........Jim is also correct.....he was a humorless, rigid man. (Interesting to note that he was married four times. An anecdotal point about his rigid and humorless personality.)
He was an anti gun extremist of the first order IMHO. Quite simply a very dangerous man IMHO.
ETA: IIRC, he was the Chairman of the Democratic Party for a time.
If he had had his way, the private ownership of firearms would have been prohibited by the NFA. He wanted an oppressive taxing scheme to accomplish his goal.
Last edited:
Carl N. Brown
Member
The idea behind federally banning making concealable weapons out of long guns (SBR short barrel rifle, SBS short barrel shotgun) was to prevent evasion of the more restrictive laws on concealable handguns versus the less restrictive laws on long guns, rifles and shotguns.
Logically, a legal handgun with a shoulder stock is not an evasion of the laws on concealable weapons (handguns and AOWs). A handgun with a shoulder stock is, if anything, less concealable than a handgun without a shoulder stock. Obviously the legal concealable handgun is being made longer and bulkier, less concealable, by adding a shoulder stock and logically should not be equated to sawing off a rifle to make a concealable weapon.
Of course, legal is not always logical.
Logically, a legal handgun with a shoulder stock is not an evasion of the laws on concealable weapons (handguns and AOWs). A handgun with a shoulder stock is, if anything, less concealable than a handgun without a shoulder stock. Obviously the legal concealable handgun is being made longer and bulkier, less concealable, by adding a shoulder stock and logically should not be equated to sawing off a rifle to make a concealable weapon.
Of course, legal is not always logical.
Carl N. Brown
Member
The retail price of a Thompson 1921 was $200, coincidental or not?
A Thompson w/o buttsock was 25" (?source of the 26" minimum length for long guns?).
There's a lot of questions about the "reasoning" behind the NFA provisions.
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
Abuse of the commerce clause is a modern invention.
I regret to inform the group that our esteemed colleague-in-freedom Jim Keenan is incorrect in one critical aspect:
The abuse of the interstate commerce clause as a source of federal power is a modern invention, arguably an outright fabrication that dates to 1941 Wickard v. Filburn.
The 1934 National Firearms Act predates that precedent by 7 years.
At the time that '34 NFA went in, it was entirely understood that congress simply didn't have any jurisdiction in the matter whatsoever.
'34 NFA was setup as a tax scheme for the explicit purpose of *creating* the regulatory jurisdiction.
The precedent for this was the 1914 Harrison Narcotics Act, which had to solve exactly the same problem of providing a basis for congressional action, which did not exist before the tax dodge was invented.
This particular formula was then sanctioned as Constitutional by SCOTUS in 1919.
For this, we can thank the statist prick Woodrow Wilson, and others. FDR, who was a Wilson acolyte, pretty much got the idea from there.
It's important for people to understand these critical junctures in our history where the wheels started working their way off the axle.
I regret to inform the group that our esteemed colleague-in-freedom Jim Keenan is incorrect in one critical aspect:
The abuse of the interstate commerce clause as a source of federal power is a modern invention, arguably an outright fabrication that dates to 1941 Wickard v. Filburn.
The 1934 National Firearms Act predates that precedent by 7 years.
At the time that '34 NFA went in, it was entirely understood that congress simply didn't have any jurisdiction in the matter whatsoever.
'34 NFA was setup as a tax scheme for the explicit purpose of *creating* the regulatory jurisdiction.
The precedent for this was the 1914 Harrison Narcotics Act, which had to solve exactly the same problem of providing a basis for congressional action, which did not exist before the tax dodge was invented.
This particular formula was then sanctioned as Constitutional by SCOTUS in 1919.
For this, we can thank the statist prick Woodrow Wilson, and others. FDR, who was a Wilson acolyte, pretty much got the idea from there.
It's important for people to understand these critical junctures in our history where the wheels started working their way off the axle.
DeepSouth
Random Guy
I have been told when the NFA passed you could buy a full auto "Tommy Gun" for about $50, so the tax would have 4 times as much as the gun. With inflation that $200 would translate into over $3,000 today.
To understand the rational behind many of the NFA Laws you really need to know about what all was going on then, which I don't. Many of the laws probably had no rational as well if I had to guess.
The original Thompson sold new for about $200 I believe. I think you could buy an inexpensive shotgun for about $5 then, and $200 was around a month's wage.
If I remember correctly, the NFA originally would have applied to handguns also, with a $5 transfer tax applied. That was scrapped, obviously.
If I remember correctly, the NFA originally would have applied to handguns also, with a $5 transfer tax applied. That was scrapped, obviously.
DoubleTapDrew
Member
Because there were a whole lot of new Bureau of Prohibition employees sitting on their hands who could no longer go after bootleggers. Make up laws, put em to work.
Absolutely. The resulting NFA was a mishmash, not the intend, which was sinister and focused.
No disparaging intended -- it's just a fact that a stock on a .38 doesn't make it into a long-range weapon, whereas a pistol grip on a bolt action doesn't turn it into a short-range one. The law as it exists does not make any logical sense, if you are trying to regulate concealable long-range firearms, for example.
tulsamal
Member
It's even worse than that. I like to use the price of gold as my measure of inflation. In 1934, gold was just under $35 an ounce. So it would have taken 5.7+ ounces of gold to pay the tax.
Today that amount of gold would be worth $6,900.
It's a relief that we only have to pay $200 today. But it's darn sad to see what has happened to the value of the dollar!
Gregg
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
Sigh.
Gold's another messy story from the same era, and it's a better index of monetary policy than inflation...though of course the topics are linked/enmeshed.
Until 1933, the value of the dollar was tied to gold, defined as $20 per troy ounce of gold.
In 1933, FDR & co pulled a fast one, suspending the gold standard, banning private ownership of more than 5 oz of gold, and confiscating all the privately held gold he could get his hands on at the old rate of $20/oz.
Having done that, he then redefined the value of the dollar to $35/oz.
Gold's another messy story from the same era, and it's a better index of monetary policy than inflation...though of course the topics are linked/enmeshed.
Until 1933, the value of the dollar was tied to gold, defined as $20 per troy ounce of gold.
In 1933, FDR & co pulled a fast one, suspending the gold standard, banning private ownership of more than 5 oz of gold, and confiscating all the privately held gold he could get his hands on at the old rate of $20/oz.
Having done that, he then redefined the value of the dollar to $35/oz.
FDR was a dictator.
He took over the US government, and remained in power longer than any president before or since.
America only ceased to be a dictatorship because he fortunately died on April 12th 1945, conveniently just when a strong dictator was no longer beneficial for World War 2, the war in Europe was all but won, and the economy and military necessary to defeat Japan were already created.
Term limits were put in place after his death as a Constitutional Amendment just to prevent another Roosevelt. Today we know if the president wins a third term it is not legitimate, so they cannot rig elections (look to the examples of some nations), or legitimately remain in power indefinitely.
An attempt to keep from having our own Augustus.
When FDR's actions at times were questioned or deemed unconstitutional he simply stated he would increase the number of Supreme Court Justices, appointing new ones that would agree with him and thus insuring his appointed Justices had the majority to always rule in his favor.
This threat effectively silenced the SCOTUS, and made them very slow to decide anything in a way which was too overtly against what FDR wanted.
They would still disagree with him in minor ways, but outright overt challenges to him were nullified.
A lot of controversial decisions and rulings, including many that laid the foundation and case law for today's decisions came during that time period.
Such as Wickard v. Filburn.
He did things his way, got his way, and created a lot of what is or became our government agencies today. Who needs Congress when you can just create agencies to do your bidding, and make policies instead of having to pass everything as laws through Congress?
It effectively made working with Congress to get additional things done much less important.
Rather than having to pass law for everything, the president could dictate policy for agencies, in effect passing law on a whim just by adding new policies.
Once he got his New Deal legislation in his first term he became unstoppable.
The NFA was meant to disarm the people. It included serious restrictions on handguns, so it prohibited modifying shotguns and rifles to replace the essentially banned handguns.
What made it out of congress was very different than the original disarmament bill, and so it made a lot less sense after lines were struck at various points, and it was modified several times during the process.
So what was passed is various leftovers including some parts meant to support portions that were removed, and as a result make little sense on their own.
The original though had a very precise logical intent.
Even as it passed it was generally considered Unconstitutional, and many believed it would be defeated as soon as it went before the Supreme Court. Even people that supported gun control reluctantly agreed it probably would not hold up to Constitutional review.
Then there was the Miller case. Miller died, and nobody presented evidence or argued on his behalf.
The court said in their decision if anyone had shown evidence that a short barreled shotgun had militia/military use the restriction would have been overturned (and they had been used extensively as trench guns in World War 1, as well as previously.)
By conclusion the same would have been true for most NFA restrictions, such as those for select fire and full auto weapons, a staple of militia/military armaments.
Miller was the nail in the coffin that allowed the general public to become used to such restrictions the public felt were unconstitutional. After a few generations such restrictions were all most people had ever known, and the thought of not having them scary.
By the time the Supreme Court got around to addressing the issue again such restrictions were a staple of American gun control, and the SCOTUS completely undid the Miller implications, and made the NFA entirely legitimate (in Heller.)
He took over the US government, and remained in power longer than any president before or since.
America only ceased to be a dictatorship because he fortunately died on April 12th 1945, conveniently just when a strong dictator was no longer beneficial for World War 2, the war in Europe was all but won, and the economy and military necessary to defeat Japan were already created.
Term limits were put in place after his death as a Constitutional Amendment just to prevent another Roosevelt. Today we know if the president wins a third term it is not legitimate, so they cannot rig elections (look to the examples of some nations), or legitimately remain in power indefinitely.
An attempt to keep from having our own Augustus.
When FDR's actions at times were questioned or deemed unconstitutional he simply stated he would increase the number of Supreme Court Justices, appointing new ones that would agree with him and thus insuring his appointed Justices had the majority to always rule in his favor.
This threat effectively silenced the SCOTUS, and made them very slow to decide anything in a way which was too overtly against what FDR wanted.
They would still disagree with him in minor ways, but outright overt challenges to him were nullified.
A lot of controversial decisions and rulings, including many that laid the foundation and case law for today's decisions came during that time period.
Such as Wickard v. Filburn.
He did things his way, got his way, and created a lot of what is or became our government agencies today. Who needs Congress when you can just create agencies to do your bidding, and make policies instead of having to pass everything as laws through Congress?
It effectively made working with Congress to get additional things done much less important.
Rather than having to pass law for everything, the president could dictate policy for agencies, in effect passing law on a whim just by adding new policies.
Once he got his New Deal legislation in his first term he became unstoppable.
The NFA was meant to disarm the people. It included serious restrictions on handguns, so it prohibited modifying shotguns and rifles to replace the essentially banned handguns.
What made it out of congress was very different than the original disarmament bill, and so it made a lot less sense after lines were struck at various points, and it was modified several times during the process.
So what was passed is various leftovers including some parts meant to support portions that were removed, and as a result make little sense on their own.
The original though had a very precise logical intent.
Even as it passed it was generally considered Unconstitutional, and many believed it would be defeated as soon as it went before the Supreme Court. Even people that supported gun control reluctantly agreed it probably would not hold up to Constitutional review.
Then there was the Miller case. Miller died, and nobody presented evidence or argued on his behalf.
The court said in their decision if anyone had shown evidence that a short barreled shotgun had militia/military use the restriction would have been overturned (and they had been used extensively as trench guns in World War 1, as well as previously.)
By conclusion the same would have been true for most NFA restrictions, such as those for select fire and full auto weapons, a staple of militia/military armaments.
Miller was the nail in the coffin that allowed the general public to become used to such restrictions the public felt were unconstitutional. After a few generations such restrictions were all most people had ever known, and the thought of not having them scary.
By the time the Supreme Court got around to addressing the issue again such restrictions were a staple of American gun control, and the SCOTUS completely undid the Miller implications, and made the NFA entirely legitimate (in Heller.)
Last edited:
unspellable
Member
At least part of the law was rather accidental. I am thinking in particular of the restriction on smooth bored handguns. Not sawed off shotguns, but handguns manufactured as such from the get go with smooth bores. Look up the history of the Marble Game Getter from around three or four years prior to this time.
- Status
