1994 vs 1934 - Why Did We Ban in 1994 But Not 1934?

[Plan2Live]

In 1934 Congress decided civilians didn't need to own fully automatic weapons along with firearms with certain other features. But rather than ban these firearms they required a tax stamp and background check to own them. Why didn't Congress take that approach in 1994 rather than going straight to a ban? If the 1994 AWB had stuck it doesn't make sense to me that you could legally own a fully automatic firearm but not a semiautomatic firearm. We've got some really smart people here, some with great knowledge of the legal system, does anyone have insight into the difference in thinking in 1934 vs 1994?

 

[AlexanderA]

The 1994 AWB was not retroactive, whereas the 1934 NFA was. Because of the retroactivity, the 1934 law provided a "safety valve," which was registration and a $200 transfer tax going forward. The 1994 law's "safety valve" was the grandfathering provision. (Same for the 1986 Hughes Amendment ban.) Without these "safety valves," these bans would have run afoul of the 2nd Amendment and/or the 5th Amendment's "taking" clause.

This is why the people advocating a new AWB -- without grandfathering -- are talking about a mandatory "buyback." They are trying to address at least the compensation requirement.

 

[jmr40]

The 1994 ban didn't really ban anything. I don't recall all of the factors off the top of my head, but it seems that there were a list of "evil" features on firearms. A firearm could have "SOME" of them, but not all of them. In a nutshell an AR manufactured after the ban could not have a bayonet lug or a flash hider. Leave those features off and it wasn't banned. Actually you could have those features as long as it didn't have a pistol grip or detachable magazine. It was really crazy. In effect the 1994 AWB is what led to the explosion of AR's. I don't have any figures to prove it,but would strongly suspect more AR's were sold between 1994 and 2004 than prior to 1994.

Also fully automatics manufactured after 1986 could not be sold even with the tax stamp. That alone really limited anyone from owning one.

 

[mljdeckard]

Because the 1994 ban was weak in other ways. It only passed because it was so weak as to be ineffective. It only banned cosmetic features, no actual guns. (It banned some by name, but did nothing to prevent them from being relabeled and sold.) And it had a sunset clause, because apparently some people thought it was going to be so overwhelmingly effective, people would be eager to make it permanent in 2004. Oops.

They change up their tactics. After Charles Whitman, they actually proposed banning all scoped rifles. For a long time they focused on banning handguns, then switched to evil black rifles. They hope that people have such a short attention span, they won't remember the last time this was tried, and they will get away with calling it 'new'.

 

[Cump]

Of note, serious legislative proposals leading up to 1934 included bans. Pistols were also part of the proposed bans and then regulation.

Contrary to some revisionist accounts, the NRA at that time was pretty effective at educating congress and mobilizing members. The NFA compromise was the result, influenced by the fears of the era ("gangster" guns) and what the NRA and gunowners were willing to give up, but also protect. It was also more narrowly tailored and limited to the constitutional federal authority to tax.

The AWB was a product of its era's fears and willingness to compromise, but also decades of federal regulation extending beyond taxation powers, and a more flexible interpretation of the commerce clause.

Others correct my history, if necessary.

 

[boom boom]

In 1934 Congress decided civilians didn't need to own fully automatic weapons along with firearms with certain other features. But rather than ban these firearms they required a tax stamp and background check to own them. Why didn't Congress take that approach in 1994 rather than going straight to a ban? If the 1994 AWB had stuck it doesn't make sense to me that you could legally own a fully automatic firearm but not a semiautomatic firearm. We've got some really smart people here, some with great knowledge of the legal system, does anyone have insight into the difference in thinking in 1934 vs 1994?

The NFA in 1934 was originally believed to have intended to include handguns among other things but due to political issues at the time was dropped from the Bill. It was also centered on the taxing power of Congress rather than the Commerce clause due to Supreme Court jurisprudence at the time. There is a long standing doctrine that Justice Marshall summarized in McCulloch that the power to tax is the power to destroy. Thus, Congress could not make the tax in effect prohibitive by long standing Supreme Court jurisprudence on limits on federal taxing power (to achieve a back door ban) for these firearms but merely one that could only be exercised by the fairly well off (there was considerable fear of the Bolshies back then).

The later GCA of 1968, FOPA in 1986, and the AWB in 1994 were based on Congressional power under the commerce clause but was complicated by the decreasing support for gun control, particularly, handguns, after violent crime spiked after the early 1960's. The GCA was passed with industry support to ban most cheap imports such as the alleged Saturday Night Special type and also to clip the wings off of the surplus firearm dealers dealing through the mail that threatened local gun shops. The impetus was rioting in the cities, assassinations of two Kennedys and Martin Luther King Jr., and spiking crime rates.

In 1986, longtime gun banner, Chairman Hughes of the House Judiciary Cmte, saw his chance to close the Firearm Registry through a poison pill amendment in the Democratically dominated House of Representatives. This was designed to scuttle FOPA despite at the time, bipartisan agreement, and the NRA made a controversial decision to some to jettison keeping the registry open in favor of the other improvements in FOPA for interstate travel and firearm dealers. The NRA, rightly or wrongly, felt that the good outweighed the last minute bad amendment so the amendment was passed.

In 1994, One of the things that made the AWB possible is the crack and powder cocaine epidemic of violence in the 1980's through 1990's. GHWB, Clinton's predecessor, had already cracked down under existing "sporting use" language on foreign imports of formerly full automatic military surplus firearms which led to the rise of parts kits and 922r regulations for such things as AK's, Uzi's, etc. Mag size limits were also applied to new sales but allowed old hi capacity magazines to be kept which of course caused their prices to skyrocket and no doubt people illegally removing mfg blocks in magazine shells designed to hold more. Some mfgs put plastic ends on these type magazines, especially for wonder nines, to prevent the mags from being extended.

 

[cslinger]

Also keep in mind $200 bucks in 1934 is like $4K today. So they were effectively banning as few folks had the means to buy a Thompson for example much less pony up a HUGE sum of money for a tax stamp.

Imagine buying a $600 suppressor or $1200 SBR and having to add $4,000 on top. There would be ALOT less suppressors and SBR/SBS out there or even MG’s assuming they were not artificially locked to pre 84.

 

[Zoogster]

Because the federal government did not believe they had the power to ban anything at that point in time even though they felt the need for that power and were starting to apply it. The reinterpretations of the Constitutional powers through the courts had not yet happened.
You can see some of this in the Miller decision when they are forced to acknowledge that if the weapon violating the NFA was a military weapon, or otherwise suitable for use in the militia that all citizens are part of, that it would probably be Constitutionally protected.
The bank robber defendant with the short barreled shotgun though died before he appeared before the court, and they were of the impression that a shotgun and especially a short barreled shotgun was not really suitable for militia use, aka that a short barreled shotgun would be useless in a military engagement.
Had he survived the defense may have given many examples of shotguns in the trenches of WW1.
But that logic is clearly showing if it was a full auto BAR/Colt Monitor, Thompson Submachinegun, or something similar it would have been protected.

What really happened is the Federal government had previously just dipped it's toes into banning things with the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act. Which when passed was on shakey legal ground, but the opiate issue considered so important that the court system would work with it and empower banning things under the guise of failure to collect taxes.
Well arms suitable for militia use are actually specifically Constitutionally protected, unlike opiates, and so it would be an even further stretch. The militia is expected and supposed to be capable of engaging current time period hostile military forces.
The Court system knew this and is why the Supreme Court intentionally didnt hear any gun cases that could raise the issue for decades after Miller.
After WW1 I believe it was pretty obvious the level of firepower citizens would need to have to be an effective modern fighting force was beyond what many wanted civilians to actually have in a peacetime society. Yet it was their Constitutional right and so if really brought before the court with competent legal representation on both sides would probably be defeated.
So they made sure not to bring it before the court again, until the legal system had worked its magic on the Constitution over the next several decades and greatly expanded the scope and power of the federal government, particularly in regards to what is covered by the commerce clause as well as other reinterpretations that put the government in a position to micromanage specific products in society, even those not crossing state lines.


Regardless of what others say and what officially is recorded as the reasoning, that is the truth of it. The courts and government (especially after the Bonus Army showed how vulnerable they could be) and likely many in society agreed with the restrictions of the NFA, but knew they would probably fail the test of Constitutional powers at the time if it went to SCOTUS and so did their best to tread lightly. The government was being allowed to get away with far more as a result of the population being desperate during the great depression, and would lead to FDR who is about as close to a dictator as our nation ever had, and who fortunately died right when a strong ruler during WW2 ceased to be needed and the war was winding down.
By the 1990s far more people in the courts and the government believed strongly enough in the end justifies the means to be intellectually dishonest and thoroughly redefine the right and ignore the Constitution. They could make it mean whatever they needed it to mean. Which is why people start arguing about what is needed for hunting and other things that had absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. The attention brought on by the Waco incident I think caused a pause in much further action, and expansion of absolute power by government would have to wait until 9/11. By the time of the AWB renewal a party that had sold itself as a defender of firearm rights was in power and couldnt easily renew it, even though the government likely wanted to (and Bush said he would pass it if it came to his desk.)

However an outright ban upfront would mobilize way too much opposition. Grandfathering, even if you plan to later go after those grandfathered (like they did in CA after grandfathering) splits the opposition into smaller more manageable groups. Each generation after the grandfathering is more removed from the freedom and must rely on others to tell them what the consequences of it would be, while being less likely to stick up for the priviledges of the grandfathered which they themselves do not share. So they are more prone to ignore the plight of the grandfathered a decade later when the government goes after them because it doesn't directly target them. The AWB only sunset because of a perfect political climate when it was up for what would have become permanent renewal. Had it been renewed they would have probably gone after the grandfathered items by this point, which would have been held by only a minority of the population with a small voice easy to mobilize against.

Heller attempts to split the difference and people use it as a way to give a Constituional protection to have guns for self defense, removing it from the militant nature of militia suitable hardware. This empowers the government and antis to target the better firepower firearms while still claiming you have your Constitutional rights met if you can shoot a street thug performing a home invasion, even if what you are limited to is incapable of actually dealing with a more formidable threat as envisioned by the founders.

 

[AlexanderA]

Also keep in mind $200 bucks in 1934 is like $4K today. So they were effectively banning as few folks had the means to buy a Thompson for example much less pony up a HUGE sum of money for a tax stamp.

True, but the initial registration was free. The $200 tax would apply to subsequent transfers. One would think that, early in 1934 when the NFA was pending, anyone thinking of buying a Thompson would rush out and get one in order to beat the deadline. Yet apparently that didn't happen. The first 15,000 Thompsons, produced in 1921, were very slow sellers. Auto Ordnance had leftover inventory from that initial production run as late as 1939-40, at the beginning of WW2. The idea that Thompsons were available at every local hardware store, no questions asked, is largely a myth. Criminals, such as Bonnie & Clyde, got their Thompsons by stealing them from local police departments. So, ironically, the NFA didn't affect criminals at all. (That's been the pattern for all gun legislation.)

 

[hso]

they required a tax stamp and background check to own them

$200 dollars in 1934 is $3,800 today. THAT is a ban by taxation for new firearms. Sure you can get onto the secondary market, but keeps the "wrong" sort of people from getting something. Then you slap the Regan ban in place and close the registry and limit the supply driving the price up by 10X and further limit who can get what.

 

[AlexanderA]

Heller attempts to split the difference and people use it as a way to give a Constituional protection to have guns for self defense, removing it from the militant nature of militia suitable hardware. This empowers the government and antis to target the better firepower firearms while still claiming you have your Constitutional rights met if you can shoot a street thug performing a home invasion, even if what you are limited to is incapable of actually dealing with a more formidable threat as envisioned by the founders.

The Heller case is going to prove to be the undoing of the 2nd Amendment. (This is exactly the opposite of what the gun community expected when the decision was handed down.) The Roberts court is going to use Scalia's dicta in Heller to uphold a new, draconian AWB. We would have been much better off if Miller had remained the leading precedent on the 2nd Amendment.

 

[OARNGESI]

But if they were just trying to keep gangsters from getting guns how did it work?

 

[Tommygunn]

But if they were just trying to keep gangsters from getting guns how did it work?

Excellently!! There has been absolutly no crime since 1934!! !! [/sarcasm].

 

[boom boom]

Most of what has been reported on Miller is wrong. Take a gander at this law review article title the Peculiar Unknown Story of U.S. v. Miller with the download link at https://uknowledge.uky.edu/law_facpub/265/

Summation:
Jack Miller and his co-defendant Frank Layton were members of a group that committed bank robberies etc in the OK and AR area. Jack Miller turned government informer on his past gang buddies and this sent them to a variety of state and federal prisons. Needless to say, they were not happy with him. There was no criminal conviction in the case as the issue dealt with whether or not the indictment using the NFA was constitutional. In two separate instances, Judge Ragon (who btw as a AR congress critter before FDR's appointment of him to the federal bench wanted to ban firearms used by criminals including handguns) oddly enough issued two separate short unpersuasive memo opinions that the 2nd Amendment made the indictment under the NFA invalid as it was barred by the Constitution. Unless Ragon had radically changed his opinions once on the bench, it smacks as a setup job for the Supreme Court to hear a test case involving two bank robbers and criminals regarding the constitutionality of the NFA. The Supreme Court granted cert.

Neither Miller nor Layton were represented at Supreme Court oral arguments as they fled into hiding after the dismissal of the indictment due to being both snitches and general criminal lowlifes. Miller after the indictments were quashed had returned to his dual life as both snitching as a government informer and committing crime in general. A couple of weeks after oral arguments in his case were held in the Supreme Court, he was found riddled with bullets and quite dead in the OK countryside after being picked up April 3rd, 1939. The decision in the case came down May 15, 1939. His co-defendant pleaded guilty after the govt reinstated the indictment and he was given probation.

So in this case, nothing is quite as it seems. One, it is very possible that the government after using Miller as an prior informant believed that he would be quite a pliable defendant in an NFA test case and Judge Ragon, being a political type judge, promptly provided the decision that would provoke Supreme Court review. Essentially, without any presentation by counsel for the defendants Miller and Slayton who were in hiding while the court decided the case, the Supreme Court only had Ragon's crappy memo opinion and the solicitor general's multiple theories of why the NFA was constitutional without any rebuttal. This is both a poor foundation for seminal law and an embarrassment of Article III's cases and controversies clause and the justiciability of the case. Bad facts make bad law as the saying goes.

To make it worse, the case was assigned to probably one of the court's less respected jurists at the time and who was generally regarded by his colleagues as an all around slacker and an unpleasant selfish grouch--Justice McReynolds. Needless to say, the aged McReynolds wrote a lousy short opinion backed by little in depth analysis or research as would befit a lazy close to retirement justice. Thus, both the individual rights and the collective rights folks both claim that the opinion in Miller supports their side despite the paucity of the opinion.

It is often said that people should not watch the process of lawmaking because it resembles the unpleasant making of sausage. It would be fair to say that the judicial branch is not excused from this sort of unpleasant facts as well.

 

[AlexanderA]

Thus, both the individual rights and the collective rights folks both claim that the opinion in Miller supports their side despite the paucity of the opinion.

The court in Heller should have built on Miller rather than treating it as a virtual nullity. The point is that Miller strongly implies that arms useful to the military are protected for individual possession under the 2nd Amendment. You don't have that in Heller as handed down. Quite the opposite, in fact. Scalia goes out of his way to denigrate the Militia Clause.

 

[OneFreeTexan]

Off topic, however, I know a lady, who wanted to buy a Thompson,,, she was well able to pay the fees and jump through the hoops, and eventually, she got, not one, but two Thompson machine guns......all totally legal.,
She had a friend who had been and was an machinist, tool maker, etc, etc,,,, he had all the cards. He looked at her two guns and decided there were some weak parts, He was not a gun man by any means,, but he made several parts for her, Then he got carried away and made a ‘few’ more parts until he had made an entire gun..He used aluminum for the grips instead of wood,,,because as he said. “I ain’t no carpenter”. So now she has three guns and permits for only two,,,During the process of getting the permits she had become friends with the ATF agent...(who wouldn’t become friends with a pretty lady with guns). So she asked him what to do with the ‘parts’?? His response,,,”Don’t tell me,, I don’t want to know”

And by the way she has let me fire the guns and it is a hoot.

She keeps them in her safety deposit box at her bank,. If only they knew.

 

[boom boom]

The court in Heller should have built on Miller rather than treating it as a virtual nullity. The point is that Miller strongly implies that arms useful to the military are protected for individual possession under the 2nd Amendment. You don't have that in Heller as handed down. Quite the opposite, in fact. Scalia goes out of his way to denigrate the Militia Clause.

One of the reasons is that it is obiter dicta, neither the government nor the defendant (obviously) raised the issue along with the strange inclusion of the Tenth Amendment which was not at issue in the case. It is a poor example of jurisprudence and I get that you believe that a collective right based on militia service is preferable to an individual right because of NFA items but the historical record, including the debates in Congress during the 14th Amendment privileges and immunities clause, supports the idea that it was regarded as an individual right.

Scalia was a textualist so for him, the text matters and the Constitution itself repeatedly uses the word people in conjunction to mean individual. What happened in Congress is that a few folks, primarily Anti-Federalist in outlook, that the new federal government threatened individual rights and that the states would be the bulwark to resist any encroachments on INDIVIDUAL rights. The militia clause within the Second simply is that both the states and federal government were broke and there was considerable opposition to creating a standing army in the first place. So effectively, the only rapid response to rebellion or disorder would be at the time the militia which was composed of most abled bodied males but the states were too strapped to finance the arms and training necessary. So, states and later the federal government in the militia acts after the horrific embarrassment of St. Clair's defeat by Indians set up individual mandates for these individuals to provide their own equipment for service along with mandated stds. of training. Some states, particularly Southern states, went further due to fear of internal disorder due to slave rebellions.

FWIW, The drafters of the Constitution and Bill of Rights are quite clear in their language, when they refer to states, they mean states. When they refer to people, they mean the individual people of the United States. Most of the Bill of Rights will give you about the same protections as the old Soviet Union's last Constitution if treated as they did as collective rights of the people.

McReynolds was a typical Wilsonian type progressive who did not have much use for history or the Framers and this is probably why he got along with Justice Holmes about as well as anyone. Instead, his opinion was that the Bill of Rights simply codified an understanding of pre-existing common law rights where judges balance rights versus regulation. Thus, a right can never quite be legislated out of existence but government itself is given full ability to determine societal needs in correspondence with an individual right. This glorified the role of the justice as arbiter and the role of the legislator, but pretty much constricted the protection of rights to whatever society felt was prudent at the time.

Historically, arguing the Bill of Rights merely as codifying common law is pretty much bunk as if it was merely codification of existing rights, then there would be no need to enumerate any. The Ninth Amendment and perhaps the Tenth would be all that you needed. The reason for the Bill of Rights is that the Federalists had to accept it as the price to get ratification through the states. But, the Federalists themselves argued that their structure of enumerated powers did not grant the power to do the sorts of things that would be protected by a Bill of Rights in the first place. A typical example is the attempt by Congress in the Alien and Sedition acts to allow punishment of the British common law crime of seditious libel. Jefferson and Madison (along with most Republican Democrats) that this was beyond the federal government's enumerated powers and violated the Bill of Rights. However, Jefferson at least admitted that a state could do such a thing if not barred by its Constitution. This position would make no sense if the federal government inherited common law directly from the British and makes hash of the historical reality that the federal government pretty much codified all federal criminal offenses rather than prosecute them as common law crimes.

In reality, the federal government failed to develop much common law outside of areas touching on the jurisprudence of admiralty, the military, and customary international law. A bit of common law existed for a brief time in U.S. territories but the very admission and organization of territories included basic constitutional rights (see the Northwest and Southwest Ordinances for example) from the get go which of course overrode common law. Thus, common law used in federal cases comes the relevant state and its cases (usually in diversity cases via the Erie doctrine). Thus, federal courts have to go cup in hand and ask the state courts for guidance on state laws including common law to resolve cases filed under the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts.

Instead, it is a better argument that it was the states that directly inherited common law from England while the federal government's powers were derived from the people of the U.S. at ratification instead of from the Treaty of Paris. But, needless to say, common law is superceded by statutes, let alone by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Even states with common law still regard it as superceded when a state's or the federal Constitution contradicts it.

 

[AlexanderA]

In response to boom boom:

I'm not saying that the RKBA is a collective right. I'm saying that the RKBA is an individual right, based on (theoretical) militia service. The assumption is that this "constitutional militia" is universal, encompasses everyone, and has no relation to any organized militia. This is how the 2nd Amendment legalizes military arms for the general public. (I know that this is a minority view.)

 

[SharpDog]

Clinton AWB comes swooping in from the King:

All I know is that I had a bunch or Para-Ordnance ,45 AACPs at the time with a couple of Glock 30 and several Glock 21's/ Spent exorbitant $$$ stocking up on hi-cap magazines from eBay and other places for like $90 / magazine $30 / (+2's for the 30s)..

Made me so pissed I decided to become a Republican agitator and I'm still doing that to this day.

Now I don't even like most Glocks (the 32's and 30's are ok) and I still fight hard to my core. The Clinton AWB is my core of determination.

 

[AlexanderA]

The 1994 Clinton AWB was premature, in that it didn't have adequate support from the public. To begin with, it wasn't able to pass Congress without the 10-year sunset provision being included. Then, after it passed, the Democrats who voted for it were punished at the polls, losing their House majority. Clinton himself conceded that the AWB vote cost the Democrats their House majority, and for years afterwards he advised Democrats not to again push the issue.

The antigunners learned their lesson from that, and now they are being careful to lay the groundwork (in public perception) before pushing for a new ban. They may be very close to that level of support now. We will know for sure, depending on how Virginia votes in its legislative election this November. Gun control, including an AWB, is the #1 issue the Democrats are running on in this election. The choice could not be more clear-cut in Virginia.

 

[fpgt72]

Also keep in mind $200 bucks in 1934 is like $4K today. So they were effectively banning as few folks had the means to buy a Thompson for example much less pony up a HUGE sum of money for a tax stamp.

Imagine buying a $600 suppressor or $1200 SBR and having to add $4,000 on top. There would be ALOT less suppressors and SBR/SBS out there or even MG’s assuming they were not artificially locked to pre 84.

Very good point....and I am really shocked they have not looked into raising the tax.......I will tell you why.....crimes are not happening with "machine guns".

What I really think will happen in the end is this same type of deal for all firearms. I really think this is how it is going to shake out.....the 1934 deal is really pretty darn smart if you think about it.....we are not saying you can't own it and infringe on your 2A rights....however if you do want one you have to shell out the cash to own one. See we are not taking them away.

The world today is pretty different from even the crazyness of the 1930's.....we don't have....well as many....gangsters hosing down people in the streets.....we have idiots doing it then killing themselves.

I said in another post....commit a crime with a firearm, you are in for the same experience as if you did it with a "machine gun"

 

[cslinger]

But why should it matter whether or not you use a Glock 17 or a beltfed 249......or a van or a Pepsi bottle.

I honestly think we should generally have our crimes broken down fairly simply into violent and non violent.

ALL violent crime, successful or not, should be dealt with immediately and with the full force and ferver of the law.

Non violent crime is where we should look towards fines, service, possibly education and generally punish with the thought of rehabilitation.

I realize there will be some gray in both areas but in general I have a hard time believing if you tried to shoot or stab somebody at some point that you will ever likely be a stable productive member of society. (Barring self defense or the odd gray outlier etc. )

Point is if you are a violent member of society you no longer get to play in the sandbox.

 

[Zoogster]

Yes I also view the 2nd and most other rights in the Bill of Rights as recognizing individual liberties.
The purpose of the individual liberty of arms though is directly connected to the views expressed and built upon by the founders and those they studied, and traces back at least to the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta was a similar pact between Barons and the King, and the founders were creating a similar pact between the citizens and the Federal government, which the individual states had to agree to in order to become members of the United States. The founders were also quite familiar with the English Bill of Rights, which partially extended some rights, but was clearly felt lacking in its scope.

The 2nd Amendment was tied to the people retaining power. The founders feared a standing army. Even what we have in the form of law enforcement bureaucracies would have been standing armies back then. Law enforcement was Sheriffs, and a minimal number of deputies and tax collectors, and even help for the sheriff was often in the form of a posse, which is essentially a temporary law enforcement militia made up of civilians.
Knowing that a standing army becomes self serving and dominates the people for its own self perpetuation rather than what is in the best interest of the people or individuals, the founders wished to limit the threat.
Many had both been a part of the British military, serving during the French and Indian War. While also then having to fight that same military to become the United States.
The best compromise would be if the civilians could handle most things. It didn't work entirely well and they would be forced to admit a standing army was going to be needed as well, though with all the reservations they had beforehand. They realized this would create a permanent clash, and that the blood of patriots and tyrants would from time to time be shed in order to keep the tree of liberty alive. It seems quite obvious they are refering to eventual conflicts between the militias and the standing army/armed bodies of the government, and that members of both would have to die but that balance be preserved so the people would not simply be dominated as they felt had been done by the British crown and military.
Whether it is a realistic system in modern context or not, it is directly connected to why they felt the individual right to arms could never be infringed on and was important. The people had to be able to own arms that allowed them to take on militant forces of governments to not simply be dominated by them. Everyone still knew professional forces were better, but the citizens with similar equipment were far more numerous and would give pause and allow self determination in the face of a professional foe. They feared both the government they were creating, the British government they defeated and expected to return (and we did have the War of 1812) and forsaw invasion and fighting with other foreign government forces.
To have arms similar to the military in their day was certainly different than having arms similar to professional forces today, but it was the intent at the time.

Point is if you are a violent member of society you no longer get to play in the sandbox.

I can walk up to you and your wife. Say some sexual stuff to her. When you get upset tell you to **** off you're just a little bitch, and go right back to talking to her.
Or maybe its your teenage daughter that is the hot one? Is she getting all hot and bothered by me? She seems upset, oh well not committing any crime.
If you do anything you are legally disarmed and can no longer own a firearm or protect your family anymore in places with even misdemeanor violent prohibitions.
If I have not done anything illegal or that justifies self defense I can be as hostile and rude as I want as long as I want on a regular basis, and the only punishment I will get is from people commiting a crime when it is too much.
Maybe some racial slurs? Maybe I will cut in front of you in line or anyone I want and tell them to shut up if they complain.
Im the tough guy and I do what I want. You are the little bitch I know will always follow the rules, the rules say you can't act, and so I dismiss you, you don't even deserve my attention. Anything of yours is mine if I wanted it, your actions make that clear. And the confidence gained in getting away with this on a regular basis would probably lead to some more predatory actions at some point.
You see, society needs a level of violence to stay civil, and I cant be allowed to act that way. Yet you rely on some other thug to change my ways, because you are paralyzed by a system that wouldnt hold itself to the standards they hold you to. What would the court system feel like if I acted that way to a judge? What would law enforcement do if I acted that way to them? But you?

In fact this view of violence started in the school system, where both children get in trouble for being in a fight, rather than determining what happened and who was at fault. Finaly stand up to the bully that then makes real on his threats and attacks you and you fight? You are in trouble too. See an injustice being committed and come to the aid of someone else? You volunteered for violence, in trouble too.
This is a female view in a female dominated field, that primarily interacts with female mothers of students, and doesn't work for raising good males. Unless you are just the consumer/nest maker now too and not the defender of society and a culture you want your family to live in. Sounds a lot like why a militia made up of our citizens wouldn't work doesn't it?
Even reactionary and defensive violence is punished and it puts you at a disadvantage to the offensive aggressor. So if punished anyways it almost makes more sense to become the aggressor and have that advantage.
I would even venture a big part of the draw to being a gangster, outlaw biker, or other bad guy is still being able to be a man by embracing being the bad guy. Someone shouldn't have to be the bad guy to be a man. Not too long ago all men were expected to hold their own and stand up for what is right. You taught and channeled that in young men, to be tough, stand up for what is right, and yes that included some violence. Men know this deep down and trying to stop violence rather than channel it positively through a shared culture everyone respects and understands is when it explodes randomly here and there. A cultural failure.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Well, in a way the 1934 Act did ban stuff.

1) In 1934 $200 was about a third of the annual salary of a factory worker, and about 25% of a well paid doctor or lawyer's monthly income. Would you feel the same way about the silencer or SBR if you had to pay a $17,000 tax for that stamp? And, don't think it would take much to adjust that "tax" for inflation.

2) They stopped allowing new registration of machine guns, through a rider, all they have to do is the same for all other NFA items and they are effectively banned as only the people with a lot of disposable income will be able to afford them. The number of people with one registered machine gun is going down, and the number of people with two or more is going up, this is the same as a ban, as it prevents the average guy from owning one.

 

[AlexanderA]

Well, in a way the 1934 Act did ban stuff.

1) In 1934 $200 was about a third of the annual salary of a factory worker.....

The retail price of a Thompson SMG, starting in 1921, was $200, rising to about $250 (I believe) by the time of the 1934 NFA. So the tax roughly doubled the cost of a Thompson. This wasn't prohibitive for people who were in the market for a Thompson anyway.

Factory workers weren't buying Thompsons. The market for them actually was quite limited, with the original production run of 15,000 still not having sold out by the beginning of WW2. The main market for Thompsons was police departments and the military (which were exempt from the NFA tax anyway), and corporations to arm their facility guards.

The real-world effect of the NFA was not serious (for a variety of reasons) until the requirements were tightened up as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968.