Solomonson
Member
Why did suppressors end up being a part of the NFA back in 1934 to begin with?
Popular media had not yet sold them to sound like pneumatic nailers...
Popular media had not yet sold them to sound like pneumatic nailers...
Why did suppressors end up being a part of the NFA to begin with?
- Thread starter Solomonson
- Start date
- Status
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Most of the reasons I've seen are speculation. I've read that no clear statements to explain why are present in the congressional record.
Ranger Roberts
Become a THR contributing member!
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,091
I have heard that it was to help prevent illegal poaching. Whether or not that is true, I have no idea.
Elkins45
Member
I have read multiple narratives from multiple sources that silencers were a last-minute replacement for the intended brass ring target of handguns. FDRs lackeys realized the unwashed masses wouldn't stand for a handgun ban and so silencers were substituted to throw a bone to the commies.
MachIVshooter
Member
This is most likely. NFA was going to fail if handguns were not struck, and so they were.
medalguy
Member
Remember the NFA was passed in the depths of the Great Depression. Poaching was something done regularly in order to keep one's family fed and Maxim "silencers" were pretty common back then according to my dad who had one. I have also read many places where the silencer registration was all a bout poaching, and partially a trade-off against handgun registration.
OP
OP
Solomonson
Member
No, not in 1934.
Poaching is the reason we read in the printed media of the day. Think carefully about that - the depression is on, many are without work, those who live out in the country can raise their food and hunting was normal year round.
Now, why do you need to suppress the sound of a firearm to illicitly bag game, but shooting at coyotes etc is an acceptable practice to keep them off your farm? Gunfire wasn't restricted to one season or a limited time period. Rural residents sneaking around trying to bag game out of season needing to keep the sound suppressed? You're still out there dragging in the game visible to passing neighbors, and as refrigeration wasn't common, you shared and shared alike to reduce waste. It also strengthened community bonds and repaid favors. Everybody knew who might be living off game, and for that matter, game populations were at their lowest when it came to the larger species. Conservation was at it's infancy and only the more urbanized states could afford a Game Warden.
"Poaching" is just some city writers justification handed out to them.
Now, why do you need to suppress the sound of a firearm to illicitly bag game, but shooting at coyotes etc is an acceptable practice to keep them off your farm? Gunfire wasn't restricted to one season or a limited time period. Rural residents sneaking around trying to bag game out of season needing to keep the sound suppressed? You're still out there dragging in the game visible to passing neighbors, and as refrigeration wasn't common, you shared and shared alike to reduce waste. It also strengthened community bonds and repaid favors. Everybody knew who might be living off game, and for that matter, game populations were at their lowest when it came to the larger species. Conservation was at it's infancy and only the more urbanized states could afford a Game Warden.
"Poaching" is just some city writers justification handed out to them.
MachIVshooter
Member
I don't know about that. While they were unregulated at the time, people who needed to poach in order to eat likely couldn't afford them, not to mention the definitive lack of firearms from that period we encounter with threaded muzzles or any other mode of attaching a suppressor. More likely is that there were a few "commercial poachers" who used them and bartered with meat.
The most salient detail one has to keep in mind about the NFA is not what was in it or the alleged why of it's passage, but the when; prohibition was ended, and there were suddenly thousands of government agents with nothing to do when they were no longer seeking out mooshine operations and busting up barrels of booze. It was also desired to prosecute gangsters and former bootleggers who'd become wealthy and powerful during (and because of) prohibition with federal felonies. Since it was very difficult to make cases for financial crimes against people who dealt in cash during a period when it was quite easy to "fly under the radar", the feds targeted the weapons those types liked to use and were frequently encountered with.
NFA was never about public safety. It was passed to keep federal agents employed, and to prosecute those higher profile criminals when it was otherwise difficult to "make something stick".
Homer Cummings, the Attorney General at the time, had a big wish list of changes to Federal law, usually referred to as the "Twelve Point Program". See here: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2011/09/16/04-19-1934a.pdf . Going into exactly what Cummings, Congress, Roosevelt, etc. wanted would take up too much space, but some of the more extreme proposals at the state and Federal level in 1925-1934 (not present in Cummings' 1934 press release) included:
Notably, neither Cummings' "12 Point Plan" nor any press reports I've read mention silencers. I feel the view that their prohibition was related to poaching, rather than gangsters, is correct.
Here's a 1938 interview with the U.S. Attorney General, on plans to regulate handguns: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2011/09/16/04-25-1938.pdf . I haven't seen anything the NFA in relation to employing the "thousands" of Prohibition agents; the government was certainly willing to cut costs at that time, and J. Edgar Hoover wanted nothing to do with the Bureau of Prohibition agents (he thought, perhaps correctly, that the public view of them as mostly corrupt would taint his new FBI). Hmm, "The Prohibition Bureau, in contrast, employed 2,278 agents and a support staff of nearly 2,000 by 1930." (per The War on Alcohol, by Lisa McGirr).
A pretty thorough discussion of the passage of the NFA at: http://k7moa.com/pdf/National_Firearms_Act_of_1934.pdf .
A history of the Maxim company notes that "the manufacture of firearms silencers was discontinued around 1925"; of course, other companies may have taken up the slack; I suspect that date was around the end of patent protection on Maxim's design. What other companies were manufacturing silencers for the American market before the Second World War? Has anyone seen a pre-1934 non-Maxim silencer made in the U.S.?
- federalizing all police
- making all major crimes federal offenses
- declaring martial law until a new constitutional amendment would eliminate state lines
- establishing various forms of corporal punishment (like whipping posts and flogging)
- censorship of crime news
- proposals to allow "third degree" interrogations
- removing limits on the "right" of police to wound or kill criminals
- making "criminal reputation" or "being a suspicious person" a crime
- "shoot to kill" orders against gangsters
- extending "public enemy" laws to anyone who associates with persons of "bad repute"
- Baumes Law
- official ostracism or banishment of persons with criminal records (barring them from cities)
- elimination of the "technicalities" protecting criminals
- registration of all U.S. citizens (including photographs and fingerprints)
Notably, neither Cummings' "12 Point Plan" nor any press reports I've read mention silencers. I feel the view that their prohibition was related to poaching, rather than gangsters, is correct.
Here's a 1938 interview with the U.S. Attorney General, on plans to regulate handguns: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2011/09/16/04-25-1938.pdf . I haven't seen anything the NFA in relation to employing the "thousands" of Prohibition agents; the government was certainly willing to cut costs at that time, and J. Edgar Hoover wanted nothing to do with the Bureau of Prohibition agents (he thought, perhaps correctly, that the public view of them as mostly corrupt would taint his new FBI). Hmm, "The Prohibition Bureau, in contrast, employed 2,278 agents and a support staff of nearly 2,000 by 1930." (per The War on Alcohol, by Lisa McGirr).
A pretty thorough discussion of the passage of the NFA at: http://k7moa.com/pdf/National_Firearms_Act_of_1934.pdf .
A history of the Maxim company notes that "the manufacture of firearms silencers was discontinued around 1925"; of course, other companies may have taken up the slack; I suspect that date was around the end of patent protection on Maxim's design. What other companies were manufacturing silencers for the American market before the Second World War? Has anyone seen a pre-1934 non-Maxim silencer made in the U.S.?
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Thank you Gelrir. That was really informative and well-researched. Very much appreciated!
There was a thread on vintage silencers ( https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/1920s-30s-pistol-suppressors.590115/ ) but it didn't come up with much.
While I don't have paid access to the NY Times archive, the free bit shows:
May 04, 1934
WASHINGTON, May 3. -- Fast armored cars, airplanes, machine guns and special rifles are to be turned loose in a great drive against the underworld if plans of the Department of Justice are approved. Attorney General Cummings made this announcement today, together with the fact that he is seeking funds with which to add 270 men to his forces.
I'm still looking to find any discussion of silencers around May-June 1934.
While I don't have paid access to the NY Times archive, the free bit shows:
AIR, LAND, SEA DRIVE ON CRIME PLANNED;
Cummings Asks Funds for Armored Cars, Machine Guns to Rid Country of Criminals. ARMY TO SUPPLY PLANES
New Legal Powers Also Sought as Treasury Prepares for War on Illicit Liquor.
AIR, LAND, SEA DRIVE ON CRIME PLANNED
Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES Cummings Asks Funds for Armored Cars, Machine Guns to Rid Country of Criminals. ARMY TO SUPPLY PLANES
New Legal Powers Also Sought as Treasury Prepares for War on Illicit Liquor.
AIR, LAND, SEA DRIVE ON CRIME PLANNED
May 04, 1934
WASHINGTON, May 3. -- Fast armored cars, airplanes, machine guns and special rifles are to be turned loose in a great drive against the underworld if plans of the Department of Justice are approved. Attorney General Cummings made this announcement today, together with the fact that he is seeking funds with which to add 270 men to his forces.
I'm still looking to find any discussion of silencers around May-June 1934.
Another headline in the NY Times archive:
January 12, 1934,
Page 5
WASHINGTON, Jan. ll. -- Fourteen bills designed to make virtually impossible the illegal possession of firearms by gangsters were introduced today by Senator Copeland as the result of exhaustive studies conducted by a special Senate committee of which he was chairman.
"Identifying marks" probably refers to serial numbers. An article from the Tennessee Law Review, in 1995, has a lot of actual discussions of the hearings that produced the NFA: http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/congress.PDF
... but alas nothing about why silencers were included.
The discussion in the U.S. Senate on June 18th, 1934 didn't include any discussion about silencers ... see https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1934-pt11-v78/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1934-pt11-v78-4-1.pdf around page 12398.
The original introduction of the bill to the House, on 24 May 1934, is just a summary; the bill was presented by Robert L. Doughton, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
I still have not found any discussion in the press or hearing reports that mention silencers (though I haven't read even 1% of all the possible literature). Whatever the reason was for its presence in the final bill (horsetrading, pressure from some group, concerns about poaching, etc.), I don't think anyone at the time thought it worth mentioning.
4 BILLS IN SENATE TO CURB GUN SALES;
Senator Copeland Offers Measures in Fight to Halt Illegal Possession by Gangsters.
SPORTS WEAPONS EXEMPT
Proposed Laws Extend to Ammunition Manufacture, Providing for Identifying Marks.
Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES. Senator Copeland Offers Measures in Fight to Halt Illegal Possession by Gangsters.
SPORTS WEAPONS EXEMPT
Proposed Laws Extend to Ammunition Manufacture, Providing for Identifying Marks.
January 12, 1934,
Page 5
WASHINGTON, Jan. ll. -- Fourteen bills designed to make virtually impossible the illegal possession of firearms by gangsters were introduced today by Senator Copeland as the result of exhaustive studies conducted by a special Senate committee of which he was chairman.
"Identifying marks" probably refers to serial numbers. An article from the Tennessee Law Review, in 1995, has a lot of actual discussions of the hearings that produced the NFA: http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/congress.PDF
... but alas nothing about why silencers were included.
The discussion in the U.S. Senate on June 18th, 1934 didn't include any discussion about silencers ... see https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1934-pt11-v78/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1934-pt11-v78-4-1.pdf around page 12398.
The original introduction of the bill to the House, on 24 May 1934, is just a summary; the bill was presented by Robert L. Doughton, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
I still have not found any discussion in the press or hearing reports that mention silencers (though I haven't read even 1% of all the possible literature). Whatever the reason was for its presence in the final bill (horsetrading, pressure from some group, concerns about poaching, etc.), I don't think anyone at the time thought it worth mentioning.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Well, that sure worked out well, didn't it?
Seeing as the use of silencers by poachers was largely unreported and that Maxim was already out of business, what we have are Congressional staffers grabbing them as another item to include in the bill. The $200 tax was too exorbitant at the time for the working man to afford, but the well heeled could, and that highlights the intent of the bill - guns for me but not for thee.
Don't forget the original point of the NFA was to ban handguns - pure and simple - which fits with the 12 Points plan, largely in line with globalist intent to disarm and make the people more pliable to even larger intrusions on our rights. Given that perspective and it's gestation in the halls of Congress as items were tossed out or included, the question is why not include silencers? Grab anything they can while the opportunity exists.
Look at the other items - short barreled rifles and shotguns, automatics, and those we now consider "other weapons" which don't fit in the traditional categories. Most of these weren't mainstream although the public did own them, so it wasn't hard to justify including them since few would be affected. They weren't in common use so it was easy to pick them off and demonize them. That strategy still exists today, make the odd item which isn't common and then get it outlawed to expand restrictions.
Exactly what we are seeing with bump fire devices - and what those require as a feature in firearms is a self loading action. Nobody adds a bumpfire to a bolt action. Outlawing bumpfire then opens the door to outlawing any action which loads a round under it's own power, the argument will be made that pulling the trigger rapidly is just slow automatic fire which is "illegal."
Since an accessory can be controlled - silencers - the gun banners have precedence to make bumpfire controlled - and that means they are another step closer to making semi auto actions controlled. Including silencers then wasn't so much justified in their intent as much as just getting an accessory controlled, that alone gets another angle on controlling firearms in some way in the future. And here we are, the future is now.
Don't forget the original point of the NFA was to ban handguns - pure and simple - which fits with the 12 Points plan, largely in line with globalist intent to disarm and make the people more pliable to even larger intrusions on our rights. Given that perspective and it's gestation in the halls of Congress as items were tossed out or included, the question is why not include silencers? Grab anything they can while the opportunity exists.
Look at the other items - short barreled rifles and shotguns, automatics, and those we now consider "other weapons" which don't fit in the traditional categories. Most of these weren't mainstream although the public did own them, so it wasn't hard to justify including them since few would be affected. They weren't in common use so it was easy to pick them off and demonize them. That strategy still exists today, make the odd item which isn't common and then get it outlawed to expand restrictions.
Exactly what we are seeing with bump fire devices - and what those require as a feature in firearms is a self loading action. Nobody adds a bumpfire to a bolt action. Outlawing bumpfire then opens the door to outlawing any action which loads a round under it's own power, the argument will be made that pulling the trigger rapidly is just slow automatic fire which is "illegal."
Since an accessory can be controlled - silencers - the gun banners have precedence to make bumpfire controlled - and that means they are another step closer to making semi auto actions controlled. Including silencers then wasn't so much justified in their intent as much as just getting an accessory controlled, that alone gets another angle on controlling firearms in some way in the future. And here we are, the future is now.
AlexanderA
Member
Bump stocks would be controlled not as accessories (like silencers, which have their own unique category within the NFA) but as "conversion parts" (like drop-in auto sears, which piggyback off the machine gun category). The difference is that when the status of drop-in auto sears changed, prior to 1986, they could have been registered and legalized, whereas that option is not available now for bump stocks.
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
I'm no expert but Title 18 of the U.S. Code of Justice lists the following:
"
(ii)
is a machinegun or a destructive device, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, the person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 30 years"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/924
The 30 year mandatory sentence statute was added in 1988. It added to the 1986 law that mandated 20 years. It is one of the harshest mandatory sentencing law on the books in the U.S.
"Whoever, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime which provides for enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly weapon or device) for which he may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime, be sentenced to imprisonment for five years, and if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun to imprisonment for ten years, and if the firearm is a machinegun, or a destructive device, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, to imprisonment for thirty years (emphasis added) (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1))."
http://www.westerncriminology.org/documents/WCR/v08n2/clark.pdf
The above article is a useful one and I encourage folks to read it.
I don't agree with the "poacher theory" on why they chose in 1934 to criminalize firearms. When they spoke of it they did not talk about it in the context of illegal hunting. They spoke about it as in the law itself, in conjunction with outlawing weapons they associated with gangsters and with pitched battles with the feds.
A push had been under way to create a national police force since just before the turn of the century. This was only in part due to the crime rate and the rise of "organized" crime and disorganized. . Cities were growing. The labor movement and strikes were more common and the Justice Dept. went to war against organized labor and the working class: The Palmer Raids, the moves against the early strikes of the 1930s in basic industry. They made political use of Pretty Boy Floyd and others. They founded the FBI. The main reason they outlawed silencers it was to give themselves another tool in the tool box. A tool that they could use whenever they wanted. A tool that helped set a precedent for laws that took a social and political issue and outlawed guns to move against it, even if it made no direct sense. Paul Clark points to this in his article.
"
(ii)
is a machinegun or a destructive device, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, the person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 30 years"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/924
The 30 year mandatory sentence statute was added in 1988. It added to the 1986 law that mandated 20 years. It is one of the harshest mandatory sentencing law on the books in the U.S.
"Whoever, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime which provides for enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly weapon or device) for which he may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime, be sentenced to imprisonment for five years, and if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun to imprisonment for ten years, and if the firearm is a machinegun, or a destructive device, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, to imprisonment for thirty years (emphasis added) (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1))."
http://www.westerncriminology.org/documents/WCR/v08n2/clark.pdf
The above article is a useful one and I encourage folks to read it.
I don't agree with the "poacher theory" on why they chose in 1934 to criminalize firearms. When they spoke of it they did not talk about it in the context of illegal hunting. They spoke about it as in the law itself, in conjunction with outlawing weapons they associated with gangsters and with pitched battles with the feds.
A push had been under way to create a national police force since just before the turn of the century. This was only in part due to the crime rate and the rise of "organized" crime and disorganized. . Cities were growing. The labor movement and strikes were more common and the Justice Dept. went to war against organized labor and the working class: The Palmer Raids, the moves against the early strikes of the 1930s in basic industry. They made political use of Pretty Boy Floyd and others. They founded the FBI. The main reason they outlawed silencers it was to give themselves another tool in the tool box. A tool that they could use whenever they wanted. A tool that helped set a precedent for laws that took a social and political issue and outlawed guns to move against it, even if it made no direct sense. Paul Clark points to this in his article.
Ooh, that's what we'd like to see ... a quote from roughly 1934 about the reason silencers should be federally regulated, preferably by an administration member or congressman. Where'd you see that?
Originally the NFA had, "Any person who violates or fails to comply with any of the requirements of this act shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $2,000 or be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, in the discretion of the court."
Hmm, a speech by Homer Cummings, the Attorney General, in October of 1933:
Does this imply that importing machine guns was already banned (well before the NFA)? This is the same speech in which he revealed the plan to use and expand on the existing military prison on Alcatraz Island in the San Francisco Bay.
An interesting anecdote from another speech of his, in November of 1933:
"By way of illustration, permit me to state that it costs the city of New York for the maintenance of its police force about twenty times what it costs the United States to maintain the Division of Investigation in the Department of Justice."
In a speech on May 12, 1934, he mentions:
I wonder if pistols and revolvers were still being considered for the NFA at that date?
"It is gratifying to be able to report that the American manufacturers of machine guns have entered into an agreement with the National Recovery Administration and the Department of Justice not to dispose of machine guns to other than law enforcement officers, banks, or institutions having police departments. The smuggling in of machine guns from abroad still presents aspects of difficulty. Congressional action upon this subject may well be considered."
Does this imply that importing machine guns was already banned (well before the NFA)? This is the same speech in which he revealed the plan to use and expand on the existing military prison on Alcatraz Island in the San Francisco Bay.
An interesting anecdote from another speech of his, in November of 1933:
"By way of illustration, permit me to state that it costs the city of New York for the maintenance of its police force about twenty times what it costs the United States to maintain the Division of Investigation in the Department of Justice."
In a speech on May 12, 1934, he mentions:
"This twelve-point program deals with ... (11 other points) ... the importation, manufacture or sale of machine guns and concealable firearms ... "
I wonder if pistols and revolvers were still being considered for the NFA at that date?
MachIVshooter
Member
As far as I know, the striking of handguns was very last minute to get a passing vote. They wanted to restrict all concealable firearms, which is why the language for SBR, SBS and AOW remained.
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
I'm no expert in this so I did not see any quote other than what's been linked to already. What I was questioning was the idea that suppressors were added because of poaching.
See, in the laws every time they mention silencers it's in connection with machine guns, sawed off shotguns and modified rifles. There is no mention of poaching. In the popular press of the time those particular items were all associated with gangsters. Whenever cops or the feds did the "guns on the table" shots at the press conferences they had a stack of "illegal" firearms. Not a poached deer.
It also occurs to me that if they had federal laws against poaching why not add the mandatory fines and sentencing for using silencers in federal game and wildlife laws? This, if the primary reason for adding silencers was to deter poaching. Or do it on the local and state levels as a part of anti poaching laws. Instead, when we see it, we see it attached to the firearms that they associated with gangsters and crime.
What I see is the law itself telling you what they want and pretty much why. They wanted to ban certain handguns as well.
They wanted more power. They saw these guns in the hands of people as a hazard to them doing their job. So ban them all and anything that might make it harder for them.
At least that's what I'm thinking.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
