NRA Supported the National Firearms Act of 1934

**************************************

*********************

**********

NRA Supported the National Firearms Act of 1934

In fact, they’ve supported gun rights infringements “since…1871.”

by Angel Shamaya
Founder/Executive Director
KeepAndBearArms.com

March 29, 2002

“The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871.”

—NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
NRA’s American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22

INTRODUCTION

When I recently used the term “NRA-supported” in reference to the National Firearms Act of 1934, some readers asked why I would assert such a thing. They believed NRA had no involvement in gun control politics back then. Because they and others didn’t believe me, I prepared this historical record to prove my claim and inform others.

I agree that blaming today’s NRA management for transgressions of their predecessors is wrong. But confronting NRA management’s longstanding support of gun control is a first step toward understanding that “My NRA” of today views the Second Amendment differently than America’s Founders did — and they have for a very long time.

Don’t take my word for it.

KeepAndBearArms.com — The National Rifle Association has been called “the largest and oldest gun control organization in America” by more than a few gun owners. A fair amount of evidence supports their claim.

As the Gun Control Act of 1968 was nearing the President’s desk, NRA was being accused by Senator Robert Kennedy (D-NY) of not supporting “any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country.” Naturally, NRA needed to respond to the allegation, and they responded with great detail and unusual candor.

To deflect Senator Kennedy’s assertion, NRA published an article by their magazine’s Associate Editor entitled “WHERE THE NRA STANDS ON GUN LEGISLATION” — elaborating at length about NRA’s longstanding support for a wide variety of gun controls that included gun and gunowner registration, waiting periods, age restrictions, licenses for carrying a firearm or having a firearm in your vehicle, increased penalties for violating gun laws, regulating ammunition and more.

Following are several telling quotes from the March 1968 American Rifleman — NRA’s premier magazine, then and now — and brief analysis of a few of them. The complete article from which these quotes were taken can be found further below. Scanned images of this article are also linked below.

First, let’s clear up the matter of NRA’s support of NFA’34:

“The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. … NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts.”  —American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22

Unless someone has evidence to prove that the NRA lied to its membership in its premier magazine, let the record show that the NRA got behind the first unconstitutional federal gun law in America and then bragged about having done so, many years later — decades after the law had been continually used to violate the rights of untold numbers of American citizens, including, surely, their own members.

The “Dodd” to which the above quote refers is the late Senator Thomas J. Dodd. Senator Dodd mimicked the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938, applied the underlying principles to the Gun Control Act of 1968, and took a leading role in getting the bill signed into federal law.

“The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition…” (P. 22)

The term “interstate commerce” is the BATF’s fundamental justification for its firearms branch — a “color of law” excuse for the many assaults of innocent people they’ve conducted.

“The NRA supported the original ‘Dodd Bill’ to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun.” (P. 22)

That’s one form of registration.

“In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns.”  (P. 22)

That’s an extension of one form of registration to all types of guns not already under registration schemes at the time.

In order to “put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts,” NRA management also pressed the federal government, in 1968, to:

“Regulate the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:

a. requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;”

That’s a registration list.

b. providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;”

That’s another registration mechanism.

c. requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;”

Wait a week to exercise your inalienable rights.

d. prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;”

That is called Age Discrimination. In essence, in 1968, the NRA was saying “You can go die over in Vietnam for your country at age 18, but you can’t sell a constitutionally protected item to your own neighbors for three more years.”

e. providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce;”

“Carrier” includes the U.S. Postal Service — another ripe opportunity for the federal government to collect names of gun buyers.

f. increasing penalties for violation.”   (P. 22-23)

What do you think America’s Founders would say about the NRA calling for “increasing penalties for violation” of unconstitutional gun laws?

At least as early as 1930, the NRA supported:

“…requir[ing] the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to local police authorities…”

Historically noteworthy is the fact that the Germans were simultaneously doing the same thing, laying the groundwork for a Hitler to happen.

and

“…requir[ing] a license to carry a pistol concealed on one’s person or in a vehicle…” [emphasis mine]

Ever heard of a license to carry a firearm in a vehicle? NRA has — over 70 years ago.

Not only has NRA management long supported gun owner registration, they’ve worked hard for it and still do. And NRA’s current management still supports “penalties” for exercising your rights, which they now call “zero tolerance enforcement”. (See Project Exile Condemnation Coalition and the Project Exile Archives for more information.)

“Many other instances of NRA support for worthwhile gun legislation could be quoted. But these suffice to show that Senator Kennedy’s ‘terrible indictment’ of the NRA is groundless.” (P. 23)

“Worthwhile gun legislation”?

The “terrible indictment” of NRA, as you will see in the full text below, was that NRA didn’t support gun control. NRA set that matter straight with a loud thud. NRA Management still to this day supports a wide variety of ever-complex gun controls. And despite taking in hundreds of millions of dollars a year, they’ve still never managed a Supreme Court court victory based on the Second Amendment’s historically-valid “individual right” argument. It’s no wonder — their version of the Second Amendment is different than that of America’s Founding Fathers.

Do notice the subtitle of NRA’s 1968 article below. A “97-year record” of supporting gun control, to NRA’s management, was a matter of pride. Some things never change:

“We think it’s reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. … We think it’s reasonable to expect full enforcement of federal firearms laws by the federal government. … That’s why we support Project Exile — the fierce prosecution of federal gun laws…we think it’s reasonable because it works. … We only support what works and our list is proud.”

—NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre
Congressional Testimony, May 27, 1999
Hearing Before 106th Congress
House of Representatives
Committee On The Judiciary
Subcommittee On Crime
First Session
(source)


NOTE: This article has been out of print for decades and is very hard to find, so we include the full text. This information is distributed free of charge, is not being used for profit and is strictly for educational purposes. Scanned images of this article can be accessed by clicking the following links: Page 22 (319K), Page 23 (275K). (In fact, if you’d like, you can see a scanned image of the color cover of the magazine where this gun control braggadocio was published.)


BEGIN TEXT OF PAGES 22 AND 23 OF NRA’S
AMERICAN RIFLEMAN MAGAZINE, MARCH 1968 EDITION

###

WHERE THE NRA STANDS ON GUN LEGISLATION
97-year record shows positive approach to workable gun laws

By ALAN C. WEBBER
Associate Editor
THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN

“I think it is a terrible indictment of the National Rifle Association that they haven’t supported any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country.”

That flat assertion was made by Senator Robert Kennedy (N.Y.), Jan. 16 in addressing the New York State University law school in Buffalo.

Terming Kennedy’s accusation “a smear of a great American organization,” NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth pointed out that “The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871.”

A few days later, Orth seconded the request of President Lyndon Johnson, made Jan. 17 in his State of the Union message, for a curb on mail-order sales.

“The duty of Congress is clear,” Orth said, “it should act now to pass legislation that will keep undesirables, including criminals, drug addicts and persons adjudged mentally irresponsible or alcoholic, or juveniles from obtaining firearms through the mails.”

The NRA position, as stated by Orth, emphasizes that the NRA has consistently supported gun legislation which it feels would penalize misuse of guns without harassing law-abiding hunters, target shooters and collectors.

Here is the record over the years:

Item: The late Karl T. Frederick, an NRA president, served for years as special consultant with the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to frame The Uniform Firearms Act of 1930.

Adopted by Alabama, Indiana, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Washington, the Act directly attacks the “mail order murder” to which President Johnson referred in his State of the Union Message. It specifically forbids delivery of pistols to convicts, drug addicts, habitual drunkards, incompetents, and minors under the age of 18. Other salient provisions of the Act require a license to carry a pistol concealed on one’s person or in a vehicle; require the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to local police authorities; specify a 48-hour time lapse between application for purchase and delivery.

Item: The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns.

Item: The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition, and prohibits the movement in interstate or foreign commerce of firearms and ammunition between certain persons and under certain conditions.

More recently, the spate of articles on gun legislation has spread the erroneous impression that the NRA has always opposed Senator Thomas J. Dodd’s attempts to keep guns out of the hands of juveniles. This is simply untrue. The facts are these:

The NRA worked closely with the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, of which Senator Dodd was chairman, in its investigation into the relationship between juvenile crime and the availability of firearms.

The NRA supported the original “Dodd Bill” to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun.

In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns.

The parting of the ways came only when Senator Dodd introduced still another bill (S.1592) in March, 1965, which drastically intensified his earlier bills. The NRA opposed S.1592 and subsequent bills introduced by the Connecticut Senator. If passed into law, S.1592 would, among other things, have ended all interstate shipments of firearms except to persons holding a Federal firearms license. It also would have prohibited even a Federal licensee from selling a pistol to anyone residing in another State.

NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts. The essential provisions which the NRA supports are contained in 2 Senate bills introduced by Senator Roman L. Hruska (Nebr.) and House bills introduced by Congressmen Cecil R. King (17th fist.-Calif.) and Robert L. F. Sikes (1st Dist.Fla.). These bills would:

1. Impose a mandatory penalty for the carrying or use of a firearm, transported in interstate or foreign commerce, during the commission of certain crimes.

2. Place “destructive devices” (bombs, mines, grenades, crew-served military ordnance) under Federal regulation.

3. Prohibit any licensed manufacturer or dealer from shipping any firearm to any person in any State in violation of the laws of that state.

4. Regulate the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:

a. requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;

b. providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;

c. requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;

d. prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;

e. providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce;

f. increasing penalties for violation.

Through bulletins to its members, the NRA has often voiced approval and support of State and local ordinances designed to keep firearms out of the hands of undesirables. A bulletin of Feb. 20, 1964 notified Virginia members of the introduction in the Virginia House of Delegates of a bill requiring a 72-hour waiting period for purchase of a handgun. In the bulletin, which outlined the provisions of the bill, NRA Secretary Frank C. Daniel commented as follows:

“A number of States and local jurisdictions have a waiting period of varying length for the purchase of a concealable firearm; and, where intelligently and reasonably administered, it has not proved to be an undue burden on the shooter and sportsman. … The bill from a technical point of view adequately protects citizens of good character from any arbitrary denial of their right to purchase a handgun. It should be judged on the basis of whether or not a waiting period for the purchase of a handgun is desirable for the State.”

The bill was killed in the House Feb. 25, 1964.

When bills were introduced in the Illinois legislature in February, 1965, to provide mandatory penalties for crimes committed while armed with a firearm, the NRA expressed its opinion to Illinois members in these terms:

NRA Secretary Daniel

“The purpose of these bills is to penalize the criminal misuse of firearms and weapons, and not the firearms themselves. This is a sound and reasonable basis for regulation and is aimed in the right direction–that of criminal conduct when armed. Senate Bill No. 351 and House Bill No. 472 are worthy of the support of the sports-men of the State of Illinois.”

The bills were passed by the Senate and House but were vetoed by Gov. Otto Kerner a few months later.

Many other instances of NRA support for worthwhile gun legislation could be quoted. But these suffice to show that Senator Kennedy’s “terrible indictment” of the NRA is groundless.

###

END TEXT OF PAGES 22 AND 23 OF NRA’S
AMERICAN RIFLEMAN MAGAZINE, MARCH 1968 EDITION

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?id=3247

**********

*********************

*************************************

Judicial Juggling: NDAA vs. Fundamental Rights

*********************************

****************

Judicial Juggling: NDAA vs. Fundamental Rights

The Judicial juggling of our most fundamental rights of liberty and due process – in this case, to not be kidnapped and imprisoned indefinitely with no trial or charge pursuant to the NDAA — continues. And, unfortunately, as with pretty much all review of Legislative and Executive actions, the judiciary continues to presume those actions valid; even now, when the soul of our constitutional republic is at stake.

Many groups and organizations have stood up against the NDAA. TAC has been leading – with much success – state and local nullification throughout the Country (http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/ndaa/). A group of activists and reporters, led by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Christopher Hedges, opted to work within the Federal judicial system and sued president Obama in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

TAC communication director Mike Maharrey has provided a great summation of events as of September 18, 2012 (http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/09/judge-reinstates-federal-kidnapping-powers/). Briefly, Judge Katherine Forrest of the District Court permanently enjoined the President from utilizing NDAA section 1021. In an incredibly reasoned and brave decision, she found that NDAA section 1021 is unconstitutional because it has actually and unreasonably infringed on the 1st Amendment expressive and journalistic activities of the Plaintiffs. (more…)

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/

***************

*******************************

***********************************************

Louisiana ACT 874 is more GUN CONTROL..!!

************************************

******************************

Here is information on the Gun Control Legislation we will be voting on November 6th, 2012 needing your “Strict Scrutiny!”

The new Amendment has been touted as adding “teeth” to the current 1974 Louisiana Constitution. I, along with a few others, have examined the current Amendment and the proposed Amendment. We have drawn a comparison for your review. I highly recommend that you, as a Louisiana voter, weigh this comparison carefully before casting your ballot “For” or “Against” the proposed new Amendment! It will be almost impossible to change this Amendment if you are one of the Louisiana Citizens on whom “Strict Scrutiny” might be applied, and you don’t like the “bite” this Amendment adds!

The link I have provided below is to the latest version of SB 303 (ACT 874) whereby the new gun control amendment will be voted on this November 6th during the national election for President.

Here are the basics-

The 1974 Constitution currently reads:

§11. Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Section 11. The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.

If the new amendment is passed, the Constitution will read:

§11. Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Section 11. The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.

The Ballot on Nov 6th will read:

“Do you support an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Louisiana to provide that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and any restriction of that right requires the highest standard of review by a court?”
“(Amends Article I, Section 11)”

http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=812575

The MAIN problem with the NEW amendment is that the second sentence contradicts the first sentence. The first sentence states that the “right …… shall not be infringed.” The second sentence states “any restriction” is allowed.

For a “Right” to “not be infringed” there can be NO “restriction” placed on it whatsoever. NONE. Privileges can have restrictions placed on them. “Rights”, as defined in the Declaration of Independence of 1776 cannot be “restricted” in any manner, as they are “unalienable,” which means not ‘alienable’….not able to be taken away, transferred or RESTRICTED…!!

The second problem with the amendment as written is that the undetermined “restrictions” which should NOT be in the amendment at all, “shall be subject to strict scrutiny” by persons or groups who are not named in the amendment. That could be anyone. It could be any public official, military commander or court.

That leads to another huge problem – “Strict SCRUTINY” by whom?

We cannot assume it means ‘court’ at all, since the word “COURT” does NOT appear in the Amendment… BUT it will appear on the ballot. Please notice that the ballot and Bill wording does NOT appear in the Amendment!

The “strict scrutiny” could be made by the City, Parish, District, State officials, or their courts, or the Supreme Court. The word ‘COURT’ might even be the World Court at the Hague, Netherlands. How many small town Louisianans will travel to The Hague, Netherlands to defend their Rights to own a firearm?
SB 303 makes four (4) references to the “Courts” but you need to ask your representative which “Court” hears the case, how that “Court” gets involved, what are the guidelines used by those “Courts” for strict “Scrutiny” and how does wording of “The Bill” apply to the Amendment when the Amendment does not call for any use of a Court system.

The wording of the Amendment simply does NOT address the Court system as the Bill does. The amendment certainly should be specific before it is implemented by our vote to approve this vaguely worded change to the Louisiana Constitution.

Actually, the second sentence in the amendment should be COMPLETELY REMOVED to be considered at all..!!

Here is some information on the “International Court of Justice” (Aka- World Court) in The Hague, Netherlands.

The International Court of Justice is the primary judicial organ of the United Nations. It is based in the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands. Its main functions are to settle legal disputes submitted to it by states and to provide advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it by duly authorized international organs, agencies, and the UN General Assembly. Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice

District 33 Rep Mike Danahay has stated to me; the NRA wrote this bill.

Here is what the NRA Vice President said it stands for:
“The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871.” —NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
(Source: NRA’s American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22.)

That quote and more information on the deeds of the NRA can be found in this article:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?id=3247

The NRA is one of the largest proponents of Gun Control in the United States as stated in the complete article from KeepAndBearArms.com. Please attempt to make it your duty to read the complete article before the November elections to learn what the Authors of Louisiana’s Senate Bill 303 “REALLY” stand for! You may not want to support this Bill once you study the proposed Amendment once you have better understand the author(s) of this Bill.

As it states in the Digest written by Thomas L. Tyler on page 2 of SB 303, the only regulation we currently have on firearms is on those who carry them concealed.

We should keep it that way. You and I can currently carry firearms within the state of Louisiana as long as it can be seen and is not concealed. No permit required. That’s more Liberty than what is being offered from the new Amendment if you ask me!
CalcasieuTaxPayers.com

*************

**********

PS…

‘Strict scrutiny’ is NOT necessary for protection of any rights, in ANY amendment to the Louisiana Constitution. There are no guarantees of protection of rights due to the insertion of any wording into an amendment at any time.

Tiered scrutiny, including strict scrutiny, is hardly a canon of constitutional law. It was invented in the middle of the 20th Century by the Warren Court.

The idea of ‘Strict Scrutiny’ did not exist before 1938, as a legal term. Those words have NO constitutional basis at all..!!

The notion of “levels of judicial scrutiny”, including ‘strict scrutiny,’ was introduced in footnote 4 of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Carolene Products (1938), one of a series of decisions testing the constitutionality of New Deal legislation. The first and most notable case in which the Supreme Court applied the strict scrutiny standard and found the government actions valid was Korematsu v. United States (1944).

In all of its forms, tiered scrutiny is a balancing methodology which omits any reference to either text or history. Instead, it gives judges the “power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” If that is the case….there are NO rights at all, only privileges, to be meted out or totally removed, as judges see fit to do.

***************

****************************

***************

“STRICT SCRUTINY”

Here’s what Chief Justice John Roberts had to say during oral arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller:

“Well, these various phrases under the different standards that are proposed, “strict scrutiny,” “compelling interest,” “significant interest,” “narrowly tailored,” none of them appear in the Constitution; and I wonder why in this case we have to articulate an all-encompassing standard.

“Isn’t it enough to determine the scope of the existing right that the amendment refers to, look at the various regulations that were available at the time, including you can’t take the gun to the marketplace and all that, and determine how these — how this restriction and the scope of this right looks in relation to those?

“I’m not sure why we have to articulate some very intricate standard. I mean, these standards that apply in the First Amendment just kind of developed over the years as sort of baggage that the First Amendment picked up. But I don’t know why when we are starting afresh, we would try to articulate a whole standard that would apply in every case?”

SO…. in light of what Chief Justice Roberts said…

There Is NO reason for the last sentence of the new proposed amendment, and its inevitable ‘restriction,’ which should NOT be in the amendment at all.

********************************

*******************

*****

NOTICE

Personal attacks are unnecessary and will not be tolerated.

**********

********************************