NFA '34 and GCA '68

R

redhawk41

New member
United States Code Title 18 Section 922
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=922

What are your views on these laws?

I ask because of this:

Firefighter busted for moonlighting as gun dealer
reported by: Paula Woodward 9Wants to Know Reporter
written by: Dan Werner Web producer
Created: 11/22/2005 6:00 PM MST - Updated: 11/22/2005 6:41 PM MST

DENVER - A firefighter was arrested Tuesday for selling fully automatic machine guns, according to the FBI.

Stan Taran Ford was arrested by the FBI at his Denver home around 4 a.m. Ford has been a Denver firefighter since 1999.

9Wants to Know investigative Reporter Paula Woodward says the arrest came after a lengthy investigation and that Ford could face up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

An arrest affidavit lists two machine guns that Ford allegedly sold to an FBI informant.

According to the affidavit, the first gun was a Sten Mark V, which Ford sold in April for $2,800. The second one was an H&K G3 machine gun, which Ford sold in August for $3,900.

The affidavit also says the El Paso County Sheriff's Department turned over information to the FBI that Ford was trying to buy a military communications system and night vision goggles from one of the military bases near Colorado Springs.

Denver Fire released a statement saying it is cooperating with the investigation and that Ford has been suspended without pay.

http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?...MPLATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf

Please read the entire affidavit here:
http://www.9news.com/newsroom/pdf-files/stan.ford.pdf
 
hmm

well according to the BATF he wasnt a licensed dealer and had 2 full auto weapons that he sold. it is pretty cut and dry. i do not see a need for full auto weapons in the hands of our every day citizen. i love the US but there are too many morons here to allow this. Gun Rights yes but i believe in limitations. 2nd Amendment yes but i feel full auto weapons are too much for the average moron to have. i can see the replies coming now, but this is what i believe. I support the NRA and the 2nd Amendment, but other than target range fun, what are you going to use a full auto weapon for?
 
Celtic, what else do you not see a need for? Let's ban things to make America better! A ban worked with the alcohol problem, it's working with drugs and guns, and it'll work with fast cars, mullets, ski masks, and the so-called music of Britney Spears.
 
There's an article in the Rocky Mountain News that says he was linked to 'anti-american' groups and that they are looking into ties with domestic terrorist groups.

When all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like nails....

Rocky Mountain News article
 
i do not see a need for full auto weapons in the hands of our every day citizen
Click to expand...


I don't see a need for you to own a car, drink alcohol, or anything else.......:barf:

That kinda talk is bad JUJU around here.......

what are you going to use a full auto weapon for?
Click to expand...

Hmm... Naaa......Nevermind.
 
I'll bet Celtic breaks more laws getting behind the wheel of his automobile than my full-auto FNC has in 20 years of sitting in safes and going to the range.
 
What are your views on these laws?
Click to expand...
Repeal both of them as they are a direct, unlawful and unconstitutional attack on our rights as American citizens.
i do not see a need for full auto weapons in the hands of our every day citizen
Click to expand...
That is completely and totally irrelevant. According to the Bill of Rights, you - and "The Government" - have no say in the matter regarding what type of firearms a lawful American citizen may possess.
what are you going to use a full auto weapon for?
Click to expand...
That is none of your concern.

If the Bill of Rights were being properly obeyed by "The Government," America would be like Switzerland - an M16 and 1000 rounds of ammunition in the home of every lawful citizen, provided at taxpayer's cost.

There's a reason we don't have that, though. It would stop cold the politician's quest for their holy grail - total control of a citizenry that cannot resist the arbitrary rule of the "public servants."
 
Me thinks that CelticMP is trying to stir up emotions here so he can "prove" what he thinks.

I, for one, highly disagree with his comments about not "allowing common citizens" from owning MG's.

That said, both laws are abominations and gives the government too much control when they should be otherwise severely limited.

The fireman did nothing wrong according to the Law of the land but did break the law of petty dictators.

Wayne
 
The answer to CelticMP's qustion is simple.

I need a fully automatic weapon so that I can (if called upon) fulfill my civic responsibility to protect my country as a member of the militia.

IF an invading army were to reach our shores, I believe that our military will have been defeated at that time. Thus, it falls to ME (and you) to become the national defense of the USA. In order to do that, I need weaponry of sufficient firepower. That means I need a fully automatic firearm at the least.

THAT is one of the purposes of the second amendment and why I need to have automatic weapons. It is also one of the reasons why the ban on automatic weapons is illegal.
 
I'm kinda curious what would happen if NFA was repealed. Ok... no longer have to register FA weapons. You still have the poison pill part of FOPA, but that was aimed at the registration of MGs... if we don't have to register, then that becomes basically moot. Right?

I've even thought about asking the ATF boys that. They've always been helpful when I've had a question...
 
Hitler and the National Socialist party were forming gun control laws in 1934. The US Demosocialists under a cloud of motorized bandits dust passed the NFA 1934 to be enlightened, modern and current/in step with the world. It should have been challenged then. The National Reovery Act was. The GCA 68 was a feel good measure after political candidates/POTUS were shot down. It really has done nothing to disarm criminals or mental cases. I feel that NFA 34, GCA 68, FOPA 86 and the Patriot Act should ALL be struck down after a reasonable SCOTUS review.
 
NFA34 was the government taking full autos out of the hands of joe average citizen. In 1934 a $200 dollar tax made firearms in full auto too expensive for common folks. It worked for many years.

Now that people have higher dollar amounts (not dollar value) the government bans the manufacture of full autos to drive the price out of Joe averages hands. Again it has worked very well.

You should have bought back when you could:) :rolleyes:

25
 
a Moment of Clarity

I have seen the replies to my post. I do agree that the government should not be restricting our ability to own firearms (even full auto). Rob P. that is the most vaild reason I ever heard as to why. It got me thinking, with the other posts, why arent we like Switzerland? (i have a cousin in Zurich and have seen his arsenal, you forgot they have hand-grenades too in the house). I read all the links and NFA 34 and GCA 68 and thought why are we the ones that are being punished? who are they to tell me what i can and cannot own, or use to protect my home? They have done nothing to stop the crime or the criminals, just you and me. I think you folks have taken a fence rider on gun control and turned him.
I am a former soldier and LEO. I always was that cop who felt upholding the law was my morale, civic and ethical duty. Never once did I stop and think who put this law into action and why. I feel as if a veil was lifted off my eyes. IZinterogator will be pleased I always pick on him about the number of guns he owns, and the fact that none are "hunting" weapons. (well i guess the hunting of man is still hunting) But i guess my post was based in i have been shot at with AK's, RPK's, PMK's and RPG's and never want to see that happen here. But I tend to forget that most gun owners aren't criminal in nature and do not use thier guns in that respect.
That being said I feel the need to apologize for being mis-informed and effectively brain washed. I was brought up in NY with a democratic family (UBER-liberal). Which is why, I reside in Texas because I am a republican and kinda conservative. The black sheep so to speak.
Thank you for the Moment of Clarity, and the education.
 
My opinion is that the class III laws are unconstitutionally violative of the 2nd amendment, arguably, because the tax is so high that it crosses the line from a revenue-raising measure, to an undue burden on our RIGHT - an 'infringement'. But that's arguable.

What's NOT arguable, it seems to me, is that the '86 law banning further manuf. or import of transferable machine guns, is quite unconstitutional. How can a law which will eventually lead to no machine guns being available to transfer, and jacking the price of existing ones up to 10 to 20 times their original price, NOT be an infringement of our 2nd amendment RIGHT? It's a law that clearly makes being wealthy a pre-requisite for exercising a fundamental right - how is that not an infringement to the citizens of this country, most of whom are not wealthy? The water is passing from warm to uncomfortably warm....
 
CelticMP, you may be interested in the then-NRA-president's (Mr. Frederick) testimony before congress on an early form of the NFA. There's a link at the top of the right column of the library (there's a link to the library in the middle of the top menu bar, above "new posts" and "search").

Mr. Frederick was not a principled enough person to identify and object to the unconstitutionality of the bill based on the 1st and 4th amendments, and although he recognized somewhat the constitutional problem with Congress giving itself police powers by taxing guns, he didn't personally have a problem with it.

It can be seen that few of the substantive recommendations were taken seriously by congress. NFA tax stamp costs as implemented were outrageous, guilt was presumed from the possession of an NFA firearm, documentation of tax stamps was not well thought out, and punishment was draconian. It is clear that Congress's intent was not merely to prevent crime (although that would have been unconstitutional by itself), but to ban or very nearly ban NFA firearms.

Mr. DICKINSON. I will ask you whether or not this bill interferes in any way with the right of a person to keep and bear arms or his right to be secure in his person against unreasonable search; in other words, do you believe this bill is unconstitutional or that it violates any constitutional provision?

Mr. FREDERICK. I have not given it any study from that point of view. I will be glad to submit in writing my views on that subject, but I do think it is a subject which deserves serious thought.

Mr. DICKINSON. My mind is running along the lines that it is constitutional.

Mr. MCCORMACK. You have been living with this legislation or following this type of legislation for quite a number of years.

Mr. FREDERICK. Yes; I have.

Mr. MCCORMACK. The fact that you have not considered the constitutional aspect would be pretty powerful evidence, so far as I am concerned, that you did not think that question was involved.

Mr. FREDERICK. No; I would not say that, because my view has been that the United States has no jurisdiction to attack this problem directly. I think that under the Constitution the United States has no jurisdiction to legislate in a police sense with respect to firearms. I think that is exclusively a matter for State regulation, and I think that the only possible way in which the United States can legislate is through its taxing power, which is an indirect method of approach, through its control over interstate commerce, which was perfectly proper, and through control over importations. I have not considered the indirect method of approach as being one which was to be seriously considered until the bill began to be talked about.

Mr. MCCORMACK. You would not seriously consider that there was
any constitutional question involved in this bill, would you?

Mr. FREDERICK. I think this bill goes pretty far for a revenue bill in the direction of setting up what are essentially police regulations.
Click to expand...

then, later
Mr. McCORMACK. What do people buy weapons for?

Mr. FREDERICK. People buy weapons for several purposes; one is for the protection of the person or property.

Mr. McCORMACK. That class of people have no fear about reasonable license requirements.

Mr. FREDERICK. Not reasonable requirements.

Mr. McCORMACK. They have no fear of reasonable regulations as to licenses, if the weapons are necessary to meet a challenge to organized society.

Mr. FREDERICK. They buy pistols also to use for the purpose of training, in the event of military necessity.

Mr. McCORMACK. Those persons need not fear reasonable regulations.

Mr. FREDERICK. I beg your pardon?

Mr. McCORMACK. Those persons need have no fear of reasonable regulations.

Mr. FREDERICK. I think our difference may turn entirely upon what is reasonable.

Mr. MCCORMACK. You are not opposed to regulation?

Mr. FREDERICK. Not at all; I have advocated it.

Mr. McCORMACK. You are not opposed to a Federal bill?

Mr. FREDERICK. Provided the bill will accomplish useful results in the suppression of crime, I am heartily in favor of it.

Mr. McCORMACK. You have given two groups who buy pistols.

Mr. FREDERICK. Another group is those who indulge in the use of pistols in connection with sports.

Mr. McCORMACK. That group need not fear any proper regulation.

Mr. FREDERICK. Any difference that we may have, and I do not know whether we have any, turns on the question of what is reasonable.

Mr. McCORMACK. I agree with you; you and I have a meeting of the minds on that. What other group is interested?

Mr. FREDERICK. At the moment I do not think of any.

Mr. McCORMACK. Then there is the criminal group.

Mr. FREDERICK. Yes; and that is the one group we are after.

Mr. McCORMACK. That is the only group who would object to regulations.

Mr. FREDERICK. Yes; and it is the only group that has never been touched.

Mr. LEWIS. In your study of the State regulatory systems have you found that they provide that men who have been convicted of crime shall not have licenses?

Mr. FREDERICK. They have, and that is a provision of the uniform bill.

Mr. FREAR. We have spent about an hour and a half on this matter and we have gotten only to page 3. We want your objections to the bill. All this discussion is very interesting, but why not point out the difficulties in the bill?

Mr. FREDERICK. I am afraid that merely running over a brief list of objections is not going to accomplish much.

Mr. FREAR. Do you not want to be heard by the committee?

Mr. FREDERICK. I am anxious to be heard.

Mr. FREAR. Can you point out, without interruption, the provisions to which you object?

Mr. FREDERICK. In my opinion, the provision for fingerprints will not accomplish what is desired.

Mr. FREAR. Suppose we strike that out.

Mr. FREDERICK. I would like to mention that the bill relates to the taking of fingerprints and refers to corporations, associations, and partnerships. I do not know how the fingerprint of any officer of such an association or corporation can have value.

Mr. FREAR. Admitting your answer is correct, that is not serious. What is your next objection?

Mr. FREDERICK. I am quite concerned about the amount which is suggested on page 8, line 15, for a permit to transport in interstate commerce.

Mr. FREAR. What would you recommend for that?

Mr. FREDERICK. I think, inasmuch as I deem the primary purpose of this bill to be purely regulatory that that ought not to be burdensome. I should make it as nominal as possible. It seems to me that 25 cents is ample.

Mr. FREAR. Or 15 cents.

Mr. FREDERICK. Fifteen cents or 10 cents, or anything which will not prevent compliance with it because of its burdensome nature.

Mr. FREAR. What is next?

Mr. FREDERICK. There is no provision in the act covering the situation of an owner of a weapon who loses this stamped order. As I see the operation of the bill, it will mean this: When a manufacturer sells a weapon to a jobber, he gives a stamped order; when the jobber sells the weapon to the retailer, assuming we still allow jobbers to exist, he gives a second order together with the first. When the dealer sells to the buyer, he gives the third order and the two previous ones, and the buyer gets the gun and three pieces of paper. It is essential to him, in order to keep out of jail, to keep those together.

Mr. FREAR. How would you suggest having but one piece of paper?

Mr. FREDERICK. I think the only piece useful is a piece of paper where the transfer takes place between two persons, one of whom is not a licensed dealer. In other words, if I, as a private individual, sell a gun to a friend, a piece of paper is necessary there. Where a dealer sells to me as a buyer, a piece of paper should be useful. I do not think a string of prior papers are of value, running from the manufacturer who may be required to keep records. In the second place, when, as a matter of human experience, the owner of a gun is going to lose papers, they are going to get mislaid, they are going to get burned up, if he cannot turn them up when required to do so he is liable to go to jail. I think there ought to be a simple method of obtaining a copy of that paper from the authorities with whom the original was filed.

Mr. FREAR. We might attach a number plate to the pistol like we do to the automobile, as small as is necessary, and have that be evidence of the privilege of transfer. You only want one?

Mr. FREDERICK. I think the owner ought to be able to get one if it is lost. I think that machinery ought to be made simple. If not, in the actual operation, you are going to create criminals.

Mr. FREAR. What is the next objection?

Mr. FREDERICK. On page 7 it says:

“Whenever on trial for a violation of this section the defendant is shown to have or to have had possession of such imported firearm, such possession shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction unless the defendant explains such possession to the satisfaction of the jury.”

Mr. FREAR. That is taken from the other act.

Mr. FREDERICK. I do not understand why it should be necessary for such a person to go to trial.

Mr. FREAR. You think that language is too loose?

Mr. FREDERICK. Too loose and too drastic.

Mr. FREAR. You might write a substitute; we want your suggestions.
Click to expand...
 
The road to Hell is paved with "reasonable" gun control

Mr. McCORMACK. What do people buy weapons for?

Mr. FREDERICK. People buy weapons for several purposes; one is for the protection of the person or property.

Mr. McCORMACK. That class of people have no fear about reasonable license requirements.

Mr. FREDERICK. Not reasonable requirements.

Mr. McCORMACK. They have no fear of reasonable regulations as to licenses, if the weapons are necessary to meet a challenge to organized society.

Mr. FREDERICK. They buy pistols also to use for the purpose of training, in the event of military necessity.

Mr. McCORMACK. Those persons need not fear reasonable regulations.

Mr. FREDERICK. I beg your pardon?

Mr. McCORMACK. Those persons need have no fear of reasonable regulations.

Mr. FREDERICK. I think our difference may turn entirely upon what is reasonable.
Click to expand...
Let's think back to Nazi Germany and the nations it invaded, defeated and occupied. The cotrolling political party enacted "reasonable" gun control. In that case, "reasonable" meant that no Jewish person could own a firearm.

Later on, it was deemed "reasonable" that Jews and other undesirables (gypsies, homosexuals, and other minorities) should be registered for public safety. Next, it was deemed "reasonable" that Jews should be rounded up and held in one location for public safety.

Then it was deemed "reasonable" that all the Jews - women and children included - should be relocated to far away camps that were out of sight and out of mind.

Lastly, it was deemed "reasonable" that all Jews - women and children included - should be used as subjects for hideous, brutal medical experiments and slave labor. Those who survived these horrors were stripped naked and forced into gas chambers to be murdered. Other doomed Jews were forced to remove the corpses of their friends, family and countrymen from the gas chambers and burn them in crematoriums that ran day and night.

The things to remember about the depraved, demented, sadistic actions of the controlling political party - the Nazis - are these:

1 - The genocide perpetuated by the Nazi party was built upon a foundation of "reasonable" gun control.
2 - The above named actions the Nazi party took against the Jews and other undesirables were ALL LEGAL under the laws enacted by the Nazis.

Genocide that built upon a foundation of "reasonable" gun control is not limited to the Jews of Nazi controlled Germany. It has happened over and over and over again during the 20th century and it is happening today in the year 2005, while the United Nations and the so-called civilized nations of the world stand by and do nothing.

If you dispute this fact, spend your next vacation in Darfur, Sudan and witness firsthand the slaughter of disarmed citizens by the controlling political party and its mercenaries that happens there on a daily basis and has gone on for years.

Think about these things the next time you are in a voting booth and see the name of a politician who has called for "reasonable" gun control.
 
So what is one to do when faced with these types of federal charges? Just the price of doing business? A good lawyer and challenge to the Supreme Court?

It seems that Mr. Ford is up the creek and in dire need of a paddle.
 
So what is one to do when faced with these types of federal charges?
Click to expand...

Nothing, you're screwed. No matter if it's right, wrong, unconstitutional, whatever, it's the government, you're screwed.

Sorry to sound so negative but we all know what will happen. We may be in the right, but just because we are, doesn't mean that we will be victorious in any court of law.

Sad fact of the times that we live in, the government controls you, you no longer control the government.

Wayne

edited: Not meaning to be so negative but we all know the truth of the facts, no need to soften them up for anyone.
 
Well, I don't know for sure if you're completely screwed. Definately in for a fight though...

I'm thinking something like a VERY wealthy person trying to buy a post '86 MG, and attempting to register it. They'd be in technical compliance with NFA, and it's probably the only way the '86 ban could be repealed. Why very wealthy? Because they'll be funding their defense on their own: I don't see the NRA getting behind such a case: it wouldn't effect hunters... :mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top