The real reason for 1934 gun act?

Status
Not open for further replies.

KriegHund

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
1,514
Location
Colorado, Broomfield
Was awathcing the history channel last week and i just rememebr to post this.

They were talking about drug control and when they got to the 1900's they said that some govt official had instututed the restriction of full auto weapons to pave the way for the banning of narcotics! It worked, obviously.

Rather interesting though, that we can barely have full autos becuase some guy wnated to ban drugs.
 
Full auto is a drug, and I'm addicted. :D

Also, note what the A and T stand for in BATF. Interesting how everything else they regulate is a drug of some sort.
 
Ummmmmmm....

It seems to me the reason they wrote the GCA 1934 was they had all those Revenuer Agents sittin around doin' nothin' after Prohibition was repealed.
 
thereisnospoon is right on the money. Prohibition ended in 1933, and they needed to keep all the tax cops employed.
 
Read "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross. Plenty of gun "control" history, and a damn fine story.
 
1934 was a desperate year for the feds. Prohibition had been repealed and hundreds, if not thousands, of federal agents were facing the dire prospect of having to find real jobs. Mid-level and high level bureaucrats were facing the prospects of having their fiefs either disbanded or diminished. But they had friends in Congress who saved them that year.

Back then you still had folks who knew what the Constitution meant. They knew that the Second Amendment meant what it said and that Congress didn't have the constitutional authority to infringe ownership of fully automatic weapons. So they did an end run: they slapped a tax that was six months pay for many of the people fortunate enough to have jobs. They did the same thing with marijuana. In 1934, they knew they didn't have the constitutional authority to criminalize marijuana. So they taxed it at $200 per ounce.

It's no coincidence that the tax amount was the same. It was calculated that the vast majority of Americans would not pay it.

There's a question I have though: Did the federal government ever set up a system so someone could pay the tax on marijuana and be legal? (I know they have subsequent laws on marijuana that criminalize it and make the tax matter moot)
 
There's a question I have though: Did the federal government ever set up a system so someone could pay the tax on marijuana and be legal? (I know they have subsequent laws on marijuana that criminalize it and make the tax matter moot)

i would say most definitely YES..

i dont know how they charged for it or anything, but PROOF was on ebay!

someone about a year ago was selling actual tax stamps, one for coke, one for marijuana, all filled out and everything, from like 1937 or whatever.

so some doctors Did actually use it and pay the tax!!

also remember cocaine is actually useful for some medical practices, and they only need a tiny bit (dilating eyes is one use, in water)
so the tax would work out for them.

what they used the weed for, i have no clue
 
Prohibition and gun control

Let's see, now. Pass prohibition, crime goes up (law abiding folks now criminals) and the way is paved for racketeering and organized crime.

The farmer who bought a Thompson A1 mail order from Sears & Roebuck is now a criminal for having an "illegal" firearm. Or he can pay the TAX and be legal.

Stamps for now illegal drugs were in fact real, but short lived as a useable item. Some states still sell TAX stamps to collectors, LA I believe does.

After prohibition was repealed (and organized crime well established) the government decided it wanted to go after 'shiners harder than before. Why were they called Revenuers? They were busting up stills and jailing folks for TAX evasion.

There is an obvious trend here. As soon as the politicians figure a way to implement a good tax strategy (leave no penny unnacounted for) they will legalize things that right now we couldn't dream of.
 
Chicago Illinois.
Chicago Illinois, dirty politicians, Al Capone, Jack McGurn and 100 other minor crooks and gangsters are the real reason for the 1934 machinegun act.
Chicago politics and politicians have done more to restrict law abiding citizens rights than any other city in the nation.
Load that in your pipe and ponder it.
 
In school they teach one tax system that politicians and economists find ideal - get ready.

You tax people for what they aren't spending. If you rent an apartment, you spend a thousand a month. If you own a house, you aren't spending a thousand a month, so that's almost the same as making a profit of a thousand a month, so you get taxed on it. If you own a car you're not renting a car, you own a lawnmower you're not renting, etc.

Honest to god, this is the ideal tax system. And look around, what economists want done gets done, because economists agree when it's time to make policy decisions, and the other consultants don't agree.
 
Onmilo has a good idea, in the late 20s and early 30s the country was getting tired of the gangsters many of whom were using "choppers" and there was editorial pressure to ban the sale of full-auto firearms. There was a movie of that era that had a strong anti-automatic message(Scareface?).
 
Did the federal government ever set up a system so someone could pay the tax on marijuana and be legal?
Yes, the government actually produced tax stamps for marijuana. Here's a website with a picture of one.

Here is the reason people (other than collectors) didn't want to buy the tax stamps:
When the Marijuana Tax Act was passed in 1937, the federal government wielded far less regulatory power than it does today and therefore imposed a "tax" on marijuana rather than prohibiting it outright. The act was worded very carefully so that the Supreme Court wouldn't overturn it for overstepping the bounds of regulating interstate commerce. The act mandated that anyone wishing to sell marijuana pay a transfer tax. Possession of marijuana without paying the tax was illegal. The required tax stamp, however, could only be issued to those already in possession of marijuana.
The 1937 Act was eventually struck down by the Supreme Court because it required self-incrimination.
 
Also, note what the A and T stand for in BATF. Interesting how everything else they regulate is a drug of some sort.
Alcohol and tobacco (nicotine, more specifically) are both drugs, which makes the line drawn between them and pot all the more stupid. Alcohol and marijuana can both make you high/drunk (a difference of semantics), and all three can be addictive, although marijuana and tobacco are more inherently addictive.

In fact, out of the pot smokers I've known and the tobacco smokers I've known, the pot smokers are more like people who occasionally drink than people who smoke cigarettes. Their choice of drug doesn't affect their daily lives (ie: cigarette breaks at work) and they don't feel the need to smoke pot all the time.

Given its therapeutic effects, a strong argument could be made that marijuana is a better drug to legalize than tobacco. But, we all know most of these laws aren't based on common sense or logic.
 
I'm not a drug policy wonk...

But I'm fairly certain that narcotics control started much earlier than 1934. IIRC, there was some federal legislation in 1914 that dealt with heroin and other "heavy hitters".
 
In school they teach one tax system that politicians and economists find ideal - get ready.

You tax people for what they aren't spending. If you rent an apartment, you spend a thousand a month. If you own a house, you aren't spending a thousand a month, so that's almost the same as making a profit of a thousand a month, so you get taxed on it. If you own a car you're not renting a car, you own a lawnmower you're not renting, etc.

Honest to god, this is the ideal tax system. And look around, what economists want done gets done, because economists agree when it's time to make policy decisions, and the other consultants don't agree.
Interesting you bring it up. A few months back I read an article which said one of the reasons the FED is pushing electronic banking and its attendant cashless economy is it will give the FED (poster's sidebar--no more a federal agency than Federal Express) the ability to nick funds left dormant for too long. Got money in a savings or checking account and it hasn't been touched in a while? FEDs think it their task to nick it. The reason? Invested money creates wealth. Static money ISN'T creating debt. I guess the attitude is "Use or lose it."
 
DRug tax stamps

I can't speak for other states but Kansas has and uses drug tax stamps. The drug dealer must purchase these stamps. The use of these stamps does not make the sale legal. If you do not purchase stamps and are caught selling, the state will estimate the amount of drugs sold, this can be done by picking a figure out of the air, usually much higher than the actual sales. A tax warrant is issued on the dealer for this amount, allowing the state to confiscate personal property. Some say they can confiscate real property, but I haven't seen proof of this. The tax warrant, after being filed, prohibits the sale of real property or the purchase of real property by the person the warrant is filed against until the amount is settled in full, including penalties and interest. the real problem here is whether other departments of the state government have access to information regarding the purchase of these drug tax stamps. Like the Kansas Bureau of Investigation??
 
thereisnospoon is right on the money. Prohibition ended in 1933, and they needed to keep all the tax cops employed.
Yeah, sorta like the end of the cold war caused them to have to cook up something else to first terrify us with and then save us from.
 
Don't forget the Veterans' Bonus March on D.C. This added to the Congressional fears, just like 9/11 created the fears for their own safety which has given us the Patriot Act.

Art
 
And it surely didn't hurt to have Homer Stille Cummings as A.G....

FDR's New Deal "hit man".
Homer really didn't much like guns -
or people who stood in his way...

His proposed gun laws were draconian indeed, but only what became the NFA made it through the legislative process

"Cummings transformed the Department of Justice. He established uniform rules of practice and procedure in federal courts. Appalled by the crime waves of the Prohibition era, he secured the passage of twelve laws that buttressed the "Lindbergh law" on kidnapping, made bank robbery a federal crime, cracked down on interstate transportation of stolen property, and extended federal regulations over firearms. He strengthened the Federal Bureau of Investigation, called a national crime conference, supported the establishment of Alcatraz as a model prison for hardened offenders, and reorganized the internal administration of the department. In 1937 Cummings published "We Can Prevent Crime, and, with Carl McFarlan, an assistant attorney general, "Federal Justice," a departmental history, "The Selected Papers of Homer Cummings" (1939), edited by Carl B. Swisher, supplemented the history.

Cummings's path as protector of New Deal programs was thorny. During his first week as attorney general, he advised Roosevelt that the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 permitted the president to close banks and regulate gold hoarding and export. Cummings personally argued the right of the government to ban gold payments before the Supreme court and won the "gold clause" cases. The department's defense of subsequent administration measures was notoriously unsuccessful, however. During 1935-1936, the Court, frequently by 5 to 4 votes, overthrew eight key statutes, including the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) and the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA).

The obtuseness of the conservative Court majority rankled. Cummings was eager to expand the judiciary and was outraged by the proliferation of lawsuits and injunctions against the government. After the election of 1936, Roosevelt instructed him to draft legislation for court reform. Neither wished to alter the Constitution. Both were attracted by an idea proposed earlier by conservative Justice James McReynolds, to add a judge for every judge who refused to retire at age seventy at full pay. Such a measure might give the president the opportunity to appoint fifty new judges, including six to the Supreme Court. Roosevelt launched the proposal, prepared secretly by Cummings, on Feb. 5, 1937. The uproar that confronted the "court-packing plan" is well known. After 168 days the Senate killed the bill by returning it to committee."

http://www.kichline.com/carrie/ICFA/homer.htm
 
IIRC, there was some federal legislation in 1914 that dealt with heroin and other "heavy hitters".

Right you are, geek. That would be the Harrison Act, our first real national prohibition law. It didn't work. More here.

So it was actually drug control which helped pave the way for later gun control, a trend which continues today.
 
Historically, the legislatures approach to abuse problems, such as substance abuse, or firearms abuse, has been to ban the tool, rather than the art created with it.
Got heroin or Opium users running about, causing trouble? Ban the drug. Leave the abuser, and create a lucrative business opportunity for the suppliy chain people. Same with Alcohal, Tobacco, or firearms.
Perhaps we need to point out the shortcomings of this approach when we write our lawmakers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top