Review: 1934 National Firearms Act, Original Bill and Hearings

Gun Watch ^ | 5 February, 2017 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

This ebook is the entirety of the National Firearms Act and Hearings, in a digitized 166 pages, from the House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee, starting on Monday, 16 April, 1934. It is available from Google at no charge as an ebook.

The Hearings of the National Firearms Act of 1934 provide an immensely valuable resource in understanding the intentions of the law.  It provides a good look at how the intricacies and provisions of the first really significant Federal Firearms law concerning individuals, came to be.

The book is the official record of the hearings in the House Ways and Means Committee and of testimony given in two periods.   First April 16 and 18, 1934, then from May 14 to May 16, 1934.

The most important thing to be noted is that the law was first concerned with the effective registration and regulation of civilian ownership of pistols and revolvers. Machine guns, sawed off shotguns, and gun mufflers/silencers were of relatively less concern, in that order.

There was near unanimous belief that machine guns could be taxed so as to make them virtually unavailable to the common man. That was already the case because of the price. At the time, the only available sub machine gun was the Thompson.  The retail price was $200, and they were not selling strongly.  There was only slight mention of other machine guns.

There was somewhat less agreement on sawed off shotguns. Sawed off rifles were added almost as an afterthought.

The hearings never touched on gun mufflers/silencers at all; no reason was given for their regulation. Machine guns were a concern, but they were few in number. The proponents mentioned they were being manufactured illegally by bootleggers.

It is clearly stated in the hearings, that making the law a "tax" was to avoid the potential violation of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment had not yet been tested in the Supreme Court. The consensus was that States were not restricted by the Second Amendment.

The hearings give an excellent view of the maneuvering of the NRA. Caught somewhat off guard, they rallied and had significant impact.  The reality is considerably different from various rumors you may have heard over the last several decades.

It was the lobbying of gun owners around the nation, lead by the NRA, that killed the inclusion of pistols and revolvers in the bill. Registration of pistols and revolvers, at no fee, was offered.  That option was also killed. The proponents could not give an adequate answer as to why registration was needed.

If a student of gun legislation wishes to understand the history and the antecedents of current legislation, here is an excellent place to start. Nearly all the same arguments used today were presented in 1934.

For example, semi-automatics that could hold 12 or more rounds were initially defined as machine guns.  Changing that definition to the current one, where the requirement is that more than one shot results per pull of the trigger, was one of the first NRA successes.

The ignorance of the people proposing the legislation is obvious.  It is eerily reminiscent of the ignorance seen in the current debate.  Most arguments were based on anecdotal evidence.

Today, there is the advantage of much more data and analysis. The arguments are essentially the same.

I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in firearms and legislation. It gives important insights into the current debate.

 ©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

[marktwain]

As there is some interest in the NFA today, here is an article on how the act was passed, what compromises were made, and what the role of the NRA was.

[Ancesthntr]

“It is clearly stated in the hearings, that making the law a “tax” was to avoid the potential violation of the Second Amendment.”

---

Note that since Title 18, Section 922(o) became law, the Treasury is prohibited from charging, and the general public is prohibited from, purchasing a tax stamp for a full auto firearm manufactured at any time after May 19, 1986. Thus, the government on its face, has stated that the 1934 NFA is NOT about taxation, but about banning “arms” (well, a certain class of them). This is a CLEAR violation of the Second Amendment, as well as being utterly inconsistent with the ruling in the “Heller” case. Oh, and the government CANNOT make the argument that full autos are “not in common use,” because they are “not in common use” BECAUSE of the 1934 NFA, and especially because of 922(o).

This issue is extremely ripe for a challenge...once either Breyer or RBG stop stealing our oxygen.

[MileHi]

Has NFA ever been tested in court? I don’t think it has.

[PROCON]

RKBA Ping List

This Ping List is for all things pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.

FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.

More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List

[marktwain]

Has NFA ever been tested in court? I don’t think it has.

Yes, it has.

It was tested in 1939 in the infamous Miller case, a total set-up, one of the worst cases in Supreme Court history.

The decision upheld the individual right of the Second Amendment, but was very muddy. Read about it here.

[wastedyears]

Unconstitutional

[TADSLOS]

It’s past time to take it down.

Unholy Act against the 2A and Liberty.

[Ancesthntr]

It was tested in the 1939 “US v Miller” case. Here is an extensive write-up on the case: http://rkba.org/research/miller/miller.html

This was a very screwed up case (and, I think, purposely so). “Screwed up” as in designed to favor the government position. First, Jack Miller was caught with a saw-off shotgun after the NFA had passed, and it had no tax stamp associated with it, so he was charged with violating the NFA. So he challenged, and won in the District Court (with the opinion by a fairly dependable liberal judge - which is very curious until you realize that the case would be appealed directly to the USSC). Then Miller was killed...and his lawyer didn’t represent his case in the USSC. Then the USSC said that “it was not within judicial notice...” that a sawed-off shotgun had any utility for militia purposes...when sawed-off shotguns were plentifully used during WW1, only 21 years earlier, by the US Army and Marines (they were known as “trench brooms”). Given that this type of gun was not of use in militia service, it was ruled to not be protected by the 2nd Amendment. Also, the argument upon which the government relied that I mentioned above, regarding taxation, and not outlawing of, full autos, sawed off shotties and other weapons, has been invalid since Title 18, Section 922 (o) was signed into law.

Given the above, the NFA is ripe for review before the USSC, and should be tossed out as violative of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

[mosaicwolf]

Miller didn’t even show up and defend himself.

[marktwain]

Read the link I posted.

It is much, much worse than Miller not showing up.

The entire case was created by Judge Heartsill Ragon. He was the Chuck Schumer of his time, extremely hostile to the idea of an armed citizenry, and the Second Amendment.

Miller was just his instrument to create the best possible test case for the NFA of 1934.

No opposition to the case was presented. The defense attorney was appointed by Heartsill Ragon.

Ragon had been appointed to the bench by FDR, a few years earlier, and was a major proponent of the New Deal when he was a member of Congress.

[archy]

It is much, much worse than Miller not showing up.

It has been suggested, and there is at least some evidence to support the claim, that Miller was unable to show up because he had been executed and his body disposed of, by federal officers.

[MileHi]

It was tested in 1939 in the infamous Miller case...

Of course (smack forehead).

And the opinion of the court was pretty plain, if they had been presented any evidence that a short barreled shot had a military purpose the tax would be invalid. And every lower court since has misrepresented the SCOTUS decision.

[MileHi]

Thanks, and I realize my obvious error. I also like to share this great link:

http://guncite.com/journals/dencite.html

I need to read more about Title 18, Section 922 (o) and understand your point about it invalidating the NFA.