Help with references?

Cougar

New member
Some time ago, on the Rosie boards, or was it on Policy.com, we were in a discussion of the impetus of the NFA of 1934. Some say it was gangsters and mobsters, some say labor troubles (beginnings of unionization) or was it the Vets' march on Washington.

Does anyone have the histories of these events? They are not covered all that well in the history books. History is written by the victor.

Viable theories anyone? Sources?



------------------
Remember, just because you are not paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you!
 
Try some of these-
http://www.wtw.org/guns/real-reason.htm
"The passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934, the first federal effort to control ownership of firearms, grew out of this historic fear of armed organizations.... In recent times, the federal government has shown itself even less patient with armed groups.... As both history and recent events clearly show, the United States has never tolerated armed groups residing within its borders. The intent of the particular organization, whether ideological or criminal, mattered little.... ATF's enforcement focus retains the flavor of that historic concern with armed organizations."
http://www.op-sec.com/myths/appendix.html AND http://www.landfield.com/faqs/talk-politics-guns/pro-gun-faq/part2/
"The violence associated with alcohol Prohibition, and the threat of Communist and anarchist subversion during the 1930s, prompted in 1934 the restriction of so-called "gangster weapons" from availability to the general public."
http://www.vpc.org/nrainfo/chapter1.html
"The 1934 hearings stemmed from the wave of violence that had accompanied Prohibition as well as the interstate bank robbery sprees of such criminals as John Dillinger. This, coupled with an assassination attempt on President-elect Franklin Roosevelt in Miami the year before, increased pressure for federal gun controls. Testifying before the House Ways and Means Committee, Attorney General Homer Cummings warned:


There are more people in the underworld today armed with deadly weapons, in fact, twice as many, as there are in the Army and the Navy of the United States combined.... [T]here are at least 500,000 of these people who are warring against society and who are carrying about with them or have available at hand, weapons of the most deadly character."

That's about all I could find on the web. I hope it helps.

Now my $0.02 worth...

The NFA was written, like every other piece of firearms legislation, out of a manufactured fear. Fear was much harder to make enmasse in the 30's. The media consisted of the newspapers and radio. Even after the Depression, people for some reason still had a strong sense of self-worth (and hence a propensity towrads free-will and thought). It took the threat of subversive Communists & anarchists, booze-hound gansters, machinegun-toting bank robbers, heathen assassins, corrupt labor unions and rebelling slaves to stir the pot up enough to get it to boil over. Of course now in the 90's we have killer cults, whacko survivalists & rebellious militias.

I think the equation works like this:
IF GxD>(1/10)US,
THEN PASS LAW

G = no. of people w/guns --> This is measured by 4473's.
D = percentage of the general populous
w/discontent or distrust towards the Gov't --->
Measured by voluntary cooperation with the Census and by increased percentage of ammunition sales following Presidential speeches and Executive Mandates.
US = General Population ---> Measured every 10 years via Census.


------------------
 
I recall reading a couple of interesting items (cannot recall the source) that did not make it into NFA '34:

1. Handguns were to have had the same status as machine guns, short barrel rifles and shotguns in the paperwork, background checks/investigations and tax stamp requirements. They didn't make it in.

2. Any rifle with a magazine capacity (or capable of having a magazine )of twelve rounds or more would be in the same class as machine guns, short barrelled rifles and shotguns, sound suppressors, etc. as well. That too did not make it in either. I think it was when legislators were trying to define what a 'machine gun' was.
I should look into the sources on this. I think that they were in books written by anti-gun authors (I think they may have been in Sherrill's 'The Saturday Night Special' and Sugarmann's 'NRA: Money, Firepower, Fear').
 
Checked in with the stated sources, and they have the info I had mentioned. Sugarmann also mentioned that when the definition of 'machine gun' was being debated that they had considered it being a firearm that could be able to reload it self (semiautomatic). Fortunately, neither of the definitions were accepted, though it appears that the semiauto capable of carrying more than 10 rounds is too deadly for some (though Chicago and Cook county had a 12 round mag cap before the Federal '94 ban).
 
Cougar, I'm sorry I have no specific referenses. However I watch every documentery on guns, guns laws and history I can, as I'm sure most of the members here do. The prevailing conclusion seems to be that the 1934 NFA was in response to automatics, specifically the Thompson, being used by so called gangsters. As you say history is written by the victor and I'm not sure that I except that. Personally I believe the 1934 NFA was passed into law to placate a vocal minority. Thus restricting the rights of the law abiding in an attempt to curb the criminal. Not unlike what we are seeing today. However the diffrence, as I see it, is the governemnts inablity to capture and prosecute the criminals at that time. I believe the NFA was a genuine attempt to stop violent crime. Albeit misguided it did stem from genuine concern for the public. Crime fighting in those days was sadly lacking and bringing criminals to justice was not an easy task. However, today huge steps have been gained in crime fighting with modern technology. Gun control measures today are aimed at furthering political careers and satisfying personal agendas. Politically speaking, then it was inability to bring criminals to justice. Now, again politically speaking, it is an unwillingness and apathy. Many modern politicians, Clinton being the worst offender, "ride on the back of crime" to further their careers. There is nothing genuine in the newly proposed gun legislation. The writters of such new laws know as well as we here that they (gun laws) will do nothing to stop or even slow violent crime. It just looks good for the soccer moms.

------------------
Gunslinger

We live in a time in which attitudes and deeds once respected as courageous and honorable are now scorned as being antiquated and subversive.
 
Back
Top