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

[jmorris]

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.

The AWB was about capacity not how a firearm worked. You couldn’t make a new 11 round box magazine for a bolt action rifle when it was in effect.

 

[Tommygunn]

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.

In that period subsequent to WW1 and the NFA, no one in the middle class could afford a Thompson. Most people who needed guns to deal with predatory critters amongst their farm animals had their Pa's single shot break-open shotgun, or their Winchester levergun, or some thing like that which was far more affordable.
A advertisement for it in the 1920s pictured a bunch of rustlers stealing a bunch of steers, their owner, a Tom Mix like character, is going after the rustlers with a 1921 Thompson, sorta cowboyesque. Yea, he could shoot up those rustlers....and a number of his steers.
I think aside from cost, many people then didn't feel submachineguns were very practical weapons (neglecting their high cost as a consideration for a moment) ... or just didn't relish shooting up their beeves along with the rustlers ....

The Thompson was a commercial failure. Had WW2 not come along, it would be an asterisk in a book of forgotten weapons no one wanted.

 

[FROGO207]

Like all things "bad" the time to act was not ripe yet.

It was this simple in a nut shell.

 

[ofitg]

During the 1934 Congressional hearings which led up to the National Firearms Act, Oklahoma Rep. James McClintic asked U.S. Attorney General Homer Cummings about the feasability of even registering machineguns which were owned by private citizens -

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4xHVurgr6T4YTJjMTkzNjQtMDUyMy00NTQyLTk1N2ItMWRmMzI2MThjM2U3/edit?hl=en&pli=1



Evidently, the words - and the intent - of the Constitution still counted for something in those days.

 

[Zoogster]

Evidently, the words - and the intent - of the Constitution still counted for something in those days.

Courtroom magic.
The federal and state and local courts are the government. But they only weild the power of their decisions through law enforcement bureaucracies.
With the military rank and file kept outside of the civilian system to prevent it from gaining control.
Those employees like their jobs and work with the court, and the court needs its armed men to have power and be happy and willing to work with them or the court decisions wouldn't amount to much. So they work together more often than not, at the expense of the citizen. If the bureaucracies need certain abilities to accomplish things the court will interprete things over time to make that happen.

The only thing that slows it down is direct attention from citizens through lobbying and election processes, and good honorable people in the courts and the bureaucracies that have so much integrity that they do what is honorable rather than what is more practical.
But since the constant pressure is for more power to more readily and easily accomplish things with fewer resources, all they do is slow the inevitable push for absolute power.
The bureaucracies not having a clear arms advantage over the civilians helps encourage working through these channels on a large variety of legal issues that are more impacted by the civilians as well as honorable men in both the courts and the bureaucracies.
While honorable men in the military watch on, and prevent the military from taking absolute power for itself.
It is a very fine balance that is quite intertwined with arms.

 

[ChuteTheMall]

In 1934, recent experience with Prohibition proved that Americans would break laws they didn't like, or at least seek out loopholes, enriching the black market and smugglers and turn against law enforcement.