Question about 1934 NFA... why?

[Dionysusigma]

I can (somewhat) kinda understand why FA capability would be restricted. Not that it should, mind you, but anyway...

Why short-barreled rifles and shotguns?

Why vertical foregrips on pistols?

Why can I either have an AK with a 14" barrel (but no stock), or an AK with a stock (but the barrel has to be over 16")? Likewise for shotguns...

How is a pen gun different from a Ruger Mk. II?

Why suppressors, when cars are required by other laws to have them?

Granted, the AWB was written and enacted because people thought that those particular guns were scary; however, I can't think of any justification whatsoever for any part of the '34 NFA (aside from FA, and that's still pretty shaky) that makes any kind of sense whatsoever. :banghead: Could somebody please offer me an explanation as to why it's there (aside from raising money through the transfer tax back during the Depression)?


P. S. If someone had both a CHL and a FA-modified GLock 17, could they carry it legally?

 

[Scottmkiv]

I don't think "why?" is really an appropriate question to ask. Not in the sense you mean anyway. There clealry is no logic behind most of the regulations.

 

[kfranz]

The transfer tax was designed to be essentially prohibitive. Why does it include SBS's and SBR's and other stuff besides F/A? Because the badguys sometimes used them. Oddly enough, they sometimes still do....

 

[Southern Raider]

"The law" is not by definition ethical, just, common sense or understandable with respect to motive. It is simply the trigger point for government to use its legal monoploly on force.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

I _think_ the NFA was originally supposed to prohibt or heavily tax ALL handguns and lots of other firearms. But that wouldn't fly and this was the best they could get through. I'll do some research and get back to you. (Or someone who is actually familiar w/ the subject will post here.)

I'm pretty sure supressors were associated with poaching and full-auto was associated w/ gansters. So they got banned, just like automatic knives. (Cuz ONLY a gangster would want an auto knife.) :banghead:

 

[Redneck Revolver]

trying to figure out why governments put certain regulations in place is like trying to find the last digit in pie....pracitcally impossible

 

[whm1974]

I _think_ the NFA was originally supposed to prohibt or heavily tax ALL handguns and lots of other firearms

From what I've read handguns was going to be regulated by the NFA and have the $200 transfer tax on them. Too many people had handguns even back then to even be able to enforce it.

-Bill

 

[rbernie]

1934 was the year after the repeal of Prohibition, and all of the fruits of that policy (the rise of organized crime, specifically). Al Capone had just been arrested, and Chicago gangland violence via full-auto Thompsons and shotguns concealed under overcoats was the hottest story around. It was the heyday of Bonnie & Clyde, what with their sawed off 1918 BAR and all.

There were a LOT of reasons for the Feds to look at the situation and think that the NFA might prove to be a useful tool in the fight against all of this. After all, they were experiencing a new type of crime with which they simply didn't have any experience in countering.

 

[Domino]

Yep, its pretty dumb. But whats even stupider is that 1986' ban on commercial machineguns. Now, why in the world would you ban something that someone has to go through loops and bounds to get? Certainly no logic there because how many legal machine guns have been used in crimes? ZERO! How many known criminals legally bought machineguns? ZERO!

As far as I'm concerned no amount of small arms are going to change the criminal mind. Besides, when you really think about it small arms don't really do that much damage anyway. If someone walked into a supermarket with score to settle and an UZI; the death count probably wouldn't be any higher with the machine gun than if he had an SKS.

If you want to kill a lot of people you dont get a machinegun, you get a bomb.

 

[boofus]

Many of the odd(and stupid) restrictions came after the original NFA was passed. Streetsweepers and USAS-12 shotguns originally were not destructive devices, just regular shotguns. But the usual lineup of gungrabbers complained to ATF and had them added to the list of regulated items. Same with pistols with a foregrip being classified as Any Other Weapon.

The original NFA proposal was for all handguns to be restricted. But it got thrown out because the lawmakers feared open rebellion.

When facing off with the gungrabbers just remember how easily they changed the law to screw gun owners. Neither the destructive device nor AOW change had to go through the legislature, they just kept screaming and crying to ATF to change what they considered DD or AOW. That's why a good SCOTUS ruling on the 2nd Amendment is so important.

 

[jefnvk]

I think that it is funny that SBR's are illegal because they are 'concealable', but adding a stock to a pistol, making it less concealable, is illegal.

 

[RooK]

I _think_ the NFA was originally supposed to prohibt or heavily tax ALL handguns and lots of other firearms

1934: $200

Calculate for Inflation...

2005: $2854.86

I would say your "think" is more than justified for the weapons covered by the NFA.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Two reasons...

1. The general public's fear of gangsters robbing and killing, fanned by the media hype of the big name gangsters.

2. The end of prohibition meant there were a bunch of "treasury agents" that needed an excuse to remain on the government payroll.

 

[Zach S]

Certainly no logic there because how many legal machine guns have been used in crimes? ZERO!

One. A LEO in Dayton Ohio used his Form 4 Mac 11 to kill an informant in '88, IIRC.

 

[Standing Wolf]

"The law" is not by definition ethical, just, common sense or understandable with respect to motive. It is simply the trigger point for government to use its legal monoploly on force.

Well said.

 

[saltydog]

Yep, its pretty dumb. But whats even stupider is that 1986' ban on commercial machineguns. Now, why in the world would you ban something that someone has to go through loops and bounds to get?

Personally I think the Fed's wanted to stop the sales of full autos by the time the 80's rolled around because they were affordable and becoming very popular even with the $200.00 transfer tax. I don't think the Fed's wanted millions of them in private hands, (people control) just my guess.

 

[Bear Gulch]

It was to make the country safe for transvestite FBI Directo rs!

 

[NMshooter]

Handguns were (and still are) more expensive (on the average).

Cheaper to cut down a rifle or shotgun to a more concealable size.

They sought to control all concealable firearms.

 

[P5 Guy]

NFA 34 did not tax any of the guns mentioned if they stayed in the purchasers state and with the purchaser. Only transfers or guns transported across state line had to have a tax stamp.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

Congress has no(not supposed to anyway)police powers and that is why we have the NFA

If I made a contract with a 100% interest rate it would be laughed out of court if I tried to collect as being usurious......Congress does it with a 100% excise tax and it is Constitutional ! I thougt Congress could not try tax an item out of the hands of the people ? If this can be done to a protected fundamental RIGHT, what else can they tax people out of doing? Smoking and drinking? Buying a certain type of car(SUVs)? Homes and all luxuries? Nothing is safe !!!!!

 

[Hkmp5sd]

NFA 34 did not tax any of the guns mentioned if they stayed in the purchasers state and with the purchaser. Only transfers or guns transported across state line had to have a tax stamp.

Not really. The NFA taxed the manufacture, importation and transfer of "machineguns and other weapons." That includes the transfer from the manufacturer/dealer to the purchaser. It was automatically assumed that they had traveled in interstate commerce at some point in their manufacture and/or distribution. That is the basis of the "Stewart vs. United States" case where Stewart manufactured a machinegun of his own design from scratch and after being caught claimed that it was not illegal because it had never crossed state lines and as such, the NFA did not apply to it.

 

[444]

My uneducated opinion:
It is my belief that the post by rbernie is what "they" would like you to believe and what "they" would tell you if you asked them.

It is my belief that the real reason is much closer to point #2 in HKMP5SD's post.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

Hey H&k,

Some parts of Stewarts GUNS had traveled in interstate commerce. The 9th said it was not enough to be a complete gun(ie factory machine gun) though.

 

[Domino]

One. A LEO in Dayton Ohio used his Form 4 Mac 11 to kill an informant in '88, IIRC.

Thaks Zac, that must be the only one. Funny how it was commited by an LEO, I assume that there was some corruption involved, no.

 

[Fletchette]

There clealry is no logic behind most of the regulations.

Sure there is. Power. It was one step of thousands to centralize authority and consolodate control with the Federal Government. Perfectly logical, just not ethical.