Replies

No, it was not. It was the era's version of "School Shootings".

The Chicago "St. Valentine's Day Massacre" had a direct bearing on the 1934 NFA being passed.

But at least in 1934 Congress understood what the Second Amendment said and what "shall not be infringed" meant so they knew they couldn't ban machine guns, so they tried to tax them out of existence.

Short barreled rifles and short barrelled shotguns went along for the ride because originally handguns were also to be taxed at $200, but at the last minute the handgun provision was struck, leaving SBRs and SBSs part of the NFA for no particular reason.

And how those taxes aren’t the equivalent of a poll tax, I’ll never know.

For what it's worth, back when I was of 16 years of age, (year of 1969) I met a friend whose "Mother" said she was shot in the leg (showed me what looked like a bullet wound) as a result of the "St. Valentine's Day Massacre."

Looking back, she wasn't proud of being shot at the aforesaid location "St. Valentine's Day Massacre," more like she survived, and was still alive to even talk about it.

Let's face fact's if true, she wasn't at the infamous location selling donuts, or flower's.

But at least in 1934 Congress understood what the Second Amendment said and what "shall not be infringed" meant so they knew they couldn't ban machine guns, so they tried to tax them out of existence.

Short barreled rifles and short barrelled shotguns went along for the ride because originally handguns were also to be taxed at $200, but at the last minute the handgun provision was struck, leaving SBRs and SBSs part of the NFA for no particular reason.

It doesn't. Here's the U.S. vs Miller decision.

The relevant portion:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.

Because Miller wasn't represented before the court, no one informed the court that sawed-off shotguns were used extensively in trench warfare during WWI. The government lied, either by omission or comsission.

Automatic weapons were not a part of the case. By the court's own logic, neither automatic weapons nor sawed-off shotguns can be regulated by the court in light of the clear meaning of the second amendment.