In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
I understand completely LH. It is the principle of the thing. The NRA has been surrendering since 1934. If they have the full support of gun owners, what is going to make them stop now?
Exposing them.............They like all political types want to KEEP their nice cushy ,Overpaid jobs.The pay they get from Gunowners thinking they are furthuring the cause.....is what they use to compromise our rights.They will change IF and WHEN they HAVE to.Not a moment before.......Troble is I don't like the infighting in an election year...But you get the picture..?....L.H.
longhunter wrote:
quote:dsmith.......Lets face it my friend,the likelyhood of getting that turned back is allmost non-existant. I would have to agree with fox on this one(How about that!)in that we must at least slow/stop the momentum that the anti crowd has managed to build first and foremost.
dsmith wrote:
quote:I understand completely LH. It is the principle of the thing.
I am very glad to hear these comments from both of you guys. I have to admit, this forum has tarnished my view of the NRA. I used to pay my $35 per year to the NRA and get that "feel good" sensation. Now it is more of a necessary evil. I agree with longhunter that the political wing of the NRA has become cushy and is probably more concerned with shmoozing with politicians and preserving their own jobs than actually upholding the literal meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
However, I do think it is important to distinguish between the NRA-ILA and the other branches of the NRA. They do hold some nicely organized shooting events, they publish some very well-done magazines with great articles and info, and they do a great job at outreach, firearms education, and public relations. These are the reasons why I will still give them my $35 a year. I know part of that is going to Wayne LaPierre and his cronies, but that is the sacrifice I make for the other benefits. When funds allow, I will probably check out GOA.
Also, as you all have already concluded, we have to be realistic in this fight. Dsmith isn't gonna get his full-auto if we can't even get a semi-auto. We will probably have to first stop the onslaught of new gun legislation before we can repeal the existing laws, although I bet there are some surgical repeals that could be passed if we had the right politicians behind them.
JMHO,
WW
P.S. For those looking for money to throw around, check out the NRA Foudation. This is a 503c non-profit organization devoted to firearms education. By law they are prohibited from funding any political campaigns or lobbying. I use Marathon USA (www.musa.com) for my telephone long distance and they donate a portion of my phone bill to the NRA Foundation each month. Their phone rates aren't bad either. Better than supporting anti-gun AT&T or Sprint. Also for car insurance AIG Direct (www.aigdirect.com) offers NRA member discounts. Do NOT use Progressive as your car insurance, they are openly anti-gun and their president is a rabid socialist.
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
I screwed up that last part, the NRA Foundation is a "501(c)(3)" non-profit. www.nrafoundation.org
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
Well............I guess that we have done at least some sort of servuce here then.I wished to at least help expose problems within the way that the NRA is doing its business inso far as gun control issues are concerned...I hope that as you all see these real problems and see how that the NRA itself has alienated its OWN RANKS that perhpas more than a few will have something to say to them about.They need to change some things folks,so that all could battle on the same front at the same time...Together the Gun owners of this country,IF they fought together could NOT be defeated.That I had believed was what the NRA was trying to do .Get us ALL together at the same time to defeat the anti-gun movement.Somewhere along the way ,the political machine took over,as it does,and the corruption came in with it.If we defeated them hands down then The NRA would begin to lose some of the money flowing into it.In my opinion they are trying to stop THAT from happening while holding your gunrights hostage so to speak.....That friends is wrong...In battle....there are'n't grey areas ,you r either with em or against em...I would love to hear from someone that they had written to the NRA and let them know just how many of us are out here,and how much More good they/we could do IF we were all on the same team........and why we are not.I have over the years,and never gotten a rely of any kind,Just a please will you join and send us money..
I sent the NRA some email. Here are my comments and their responses:
---My Comment---
I saw on your About-NRA-ILA page the following quote:
In 1986, the NRA and millions of gun owners nationwide applauded as the Firearms
Owners' Protection Act was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan.
--End Quote--
Any way, I'd like you to know that the FOPA is the reason that no law abiding
individual (who does not have a business selling machineguns to police) can
register a machinegun made after 1986. It seems that your orginization not only
supported the original machine gun ban, the NFA, it also supportet the NFA's
expansion into the FOPA. I want to know: does the NRA support private citizens
owning machine guns? It seems you supported every machine gun ban to come your
way.
Therefore, I do not plan to renew my membership. I have switched over to the Gun
Owners of America. They represent my no-compromise attitude. Maybe if you start
opposing the NFA and the anti-gun amendments of the FOPA, and start fighting for
the rights of private citizens who want to own machine guns, I will rejoin.
As a side note, the full auto gun I would like to register will now cost well
over $13,000 because of these bans.
---NRA Comment
Thank you for contacting the NRA-ILA. Most gun owners would disagree with your
apparent opinion that the only provision of the FOPA worthy of your attention is
its machine gun provision. That is because the FOPA is the single most important
law ever passed by Congress in the interest of protecting and promoting the
right to arms.
FOPA eliminated several portions of the Gun Control Act that had served no
crime-fighting purpose, while creating unnecessary obstacles to individuals'
exercise of their right to acquire arms. For example, FOPA eliminated the total
prohibition on individuals acquiring long guns outside their state of residence.
It eliminated the record-keeping requirement on purchases of handgun ammunition.
It gave federal protection to individuals transporting their firearms across
state lines. It stipulated that people are not required to have federal firearm
licenses to occasionally sell a gun from their collection. It allowed dealers to
conduct business at gun shows. It prohibited the use of federally-mandated gun
sale records for gun registration.
You are simply incorrect when you suggest that NRA "supported every machine gun
ban that came your way." There has been only one federal machine gun ban, and
NRA did not support it. As noted, NRA's FCRLDF attempted to get the Supreme
Court to overturn the ban. If someone told you differently, they were either
misinformed or lying to you.
It is unfortunate that you have left NRA. It is NRA with which legislators work
to get good laws passed and bad laws eliminated.
---My Second Comment
The NRA may have tried to overturn the NFA, I'm not sure. However, they
supported the full ban in 1986. If the NRA wants to take away the
machineguns that are already owned (FOPA II?) I don't want it to be done
with my money. It is hard enough to save up the $5,000 for an Uzi or the
$13,000 for an MP5.
Also, here is something that bothers me from 1934:
NRA President's Testimony During Congressional Debate
of the National Firearms Act of 1934
Introduction by Angel Shamaya
Director@KeepAndBearArms.com
Transcript from U.S. Government Printing Office
March 4, 2004
KeepAndBearArms.com -- Congressional hearings over the National Firearms Act
of 1934 (H.R.9066) took place April 16 & 18 and May 14, 15, & 16 of 1934.
Then-NRA President Karl T. Frederick testified on behalf of the National
Rifle Association (NRA). His testimony is below and includes the text in
full plus scanned images of each page.
Before you read the full transcript, your attention is drawn to a few of
excerpts that might interest you as a friend of the original meaning,
purpose and intent of the Second Amendment. Some NRA supporters are fond of
saying that the NRA was not involved in gun-related legislative activities
that far back. Somehow, they believe that repeating that myth often enough
will make it true.
NRA President Frederick's testimony began by explaining that he had "been
giving this subject of firearms regulations study and consideration over a
period of 15 years" and that "the suggestions resulting from that study of
mine...have resulted in the adoption in many States of regulatory provisions
suggested by us." He later described his active role in helping pass D.C.'s
then-recent, ultra-stringent gun controls. Having helped enact gun control
legislation was a matter of pride for NRA's president -- as you shall see
below. The D.C. gun controls of which he candidly boasted included the
following provisions, among others:
* prohibited carrying a concealed pistol without a license -- with an
exemption, of course, for law enforcement officers
* justification for getting licensed to carry a firearm if "applicant has
good reason to fear injury to his person or property" -- and the license
application process included a mugshot, treating lawful gun owners like
common criminals
* a two-day waiting period to purchase a handgun -- with an exemption, of
course, for law enforcement officers -- even though violent stalkers don't
tend to wait to attack
* required thorough record-keeping by gun dealers, of all transactions and
every buyer
* required that the seller deliver all of a buyer's personal information to
the police within hours of the transaction, including the make, model and
serial number of the firearm
* mandated that gun dealers be licensed at the discretion of the police
* banned altering firearms' serial numbers or other identifying marks
The copy of the text of that law, which the NRA had helped enact, begins on
page 45 below. Frederick described the law as "the uniform firearms act
which we [the NRA] sponsored" -- and submitted the full copy to the
congressmen debating the enactment of NFA'34. The Washington D.C. gun
controls mentioned in brief above were approved on July 8, 1932 -- nearly
two years before the NRA's President gave the following testimony.
Mr. Frederick's testimony before Congress included a variety of questions
from the elected officials present that day. The following question was
asked by Congressman CLEMENT C. DICKINSON, Missouri, of the Committee on
Ways and Means:
"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?"
Notice that Rep. Dickinson used the phrase "right of a person," as opposed
to "right of a State." In 1934, it was commonly understood that the Second
Amendment's right of the people meant just that: people. Person is the
singular of people. The congressman's question was a natural one to ask.
Here is how the NRA's president responded:
"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." [emphasis added]
The National Firearms Act of 1934 was a virtual ban on machineguns,
short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles and sound suppressors -- a
ban for commoners, that is. It ultimately placed a $200 transfer tax on
these products (with the usual exception for law enforcement officers, of
course). Only the well-to-do could afford that kind of money -- especially
for shotguns that were going for five or ten dollars and sound suppressors
that were even cheaper. At that time, you could get a brand new, high
quality machinegun for around a hundred bucks and a worn one for cheaper.
Tripling the price overnight put these already-expensive weapons out of
reach for the average Depression Era gun owner.
A decade and a half devoted to the study of (and methodical, proud
implementation of) gun control regulation, yet the NRA President had not
given any serious thought to how the Second Amendment rights of NRA members
and gun owners at large might be affected by a machinegun and short-barreled
shotgun ban -- even though he knew he'd be testifying before Congress on the
proposed legislation. Furthermore, as his testimony shows, he also believed
that the States could ban firearms without violating the Second Amendment.
Before you dig in to the full transcript, here's another statement the NRA's
President made that day:
MR. FREDERICK: ... "I have never believed in the general practice of
carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. ... I do not believe in the general
promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only
under licenses" [emphasis added]
You'll find that section of his testimony on page 59, below.
But before you read on, take a moment and replace the words "weapons" and
"guns" with "Bible" and "religious materials" in the above quote and see how
it sounds. To save you the time in transposing the words yourself, here is
the same quote with the words replaced as suggested:
"I have never believed in the general practice of carrying Bibles. I seldom
carry one. ... I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of
religious materials. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under
licenses"
Religious texts are covered by the First Amendment. Firearms are covered by
the Second Amendment. The analogy seems quite fair.
NOTE OF HISTORICAL INTEREST: As a matter of purely historical interest,
Frederick's testimony took place on April 18, 1934 -- the exact same day
Adolf Hitler named J von Ribbentrop as Germany's "Ambassador for
Disarmament." See: http://www.hiphistory.com/e/1934/apr18.65305.html and http://www.hiphistory.com/d/apr18.html. That's not to suggest a relationship
between the two events, of course -- that would be silly. But history buffs
might find it rather intriguing. NFA'34 is the foundation for all federal
gun control and has been used in courts to justify many state gun controls
-- and gun control is clearly about disarmament. Odd timing. Almost as odd
as the fact that the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968 was copied from the Nazi
Firearms Act of 1938. But coincidences happen, and this is surely just
another weird one.
Finally, if you've been misled to believe that the Second Amendment was not
intended to protect the weapons affected by the National Firearms Act of
1934, do yourself a big favor and read: U.S. v. Miller and Short-Barreled
Shotguns by Brian Puckett. If the U.S. Supreme Court ever decides to give a
fair hearing to the Second Amendment grievances the people have been trying
to bring in court, Puckett's article will be highly useful as evidence to
undo the damage the oft-misapplied Miller case has wrought on gun rights.
Miller challenged NFA'34 up to the Supreme Court, resulting in a truly
bizarre ruling that has been used to abuse gun owners ever since.
---NRA Second Response
Regrettably, you misread what I sent you previously, or you are deliberately
misstating NRA's position. The NRA's FCRLDF attempted to overturn the 1986
provision.
---My Third Letter
It is good that the NRA tried to overturn parts of the FOPA. However I
believe the 1934 quote is real. I don't want to hold stuff that happened in
the 1930s against the NRA of today. You said that the NRA tried to overturn
parts of the FOPA. That would be a good thing. I don't hear much from the
NRA trying to fix this problem. What exactly did the NRA do to end the
anti-gun parts of the FOPA?
---NRA Third Response
Sir: To be precise, there is only one anti-gun provision in the FOPA and, as I
have told you already, NRA attempted to have that provision overturned in court.
Currently, the debate in Congress and among the public generally, has shifted to
semi-automatic firearms. There is no support in Congress or among the public to
liberalize laws pertaining to fully-automatic firearms at this time. Groups and
individuals who demand liberalization of laws pertaining to fully-automatic
firearms run the risk of alienating the public toward pro-RKBA positions
generally. Similarly, groups and individuals who oppose permit-based carry laws,
claiming that the only law acceptable to them is one allowing carrying without a
permit, run the risk of alienating the public. These groups and individuals fail
to realize that America is a democracy, and to achieve improvements in
gun-related laws requires obtaining the trust and support of the public, a
process which sometimes cannot be achieved overnight.
The NRA's approach has been validated by experience. Permit-based carry laws
have enabled us to demonstrate that gun owners can be trusted to carry guns in
public, proving that anti-gun activists have been wrong all along and
discrediting them as fanatics. In that battle, the anti-gunners have lost with
the public.
Similarly, we look forward to the expiration of the federal "assault weapon" law
against many semi-automatic firearms, knowing that it will not be followed by a
dramatic increase in crime, which will again prove how wrong and fanatic the
anti-gunners have been.
As gun owners prove themselves worthy of trust, and anti-gunners prove
themselves not worthy of trust, we will win with the public generally.
---End Comments
So, what the NRA told me, was either that I misstated their quote from the 1934 president (I trust the second amendment foundation more than NRA). They also said that they tried to repeal the damage they did to me but failed (then why'd they do it to me to begin with?).
They also said that we shouldn't try to legalize full autos so we don't lose public support! They already lost all the public support they have to lose. Oh well, if they ever decide whose side they are on, maybe I will join them again.
Some can try to balance the subject on a razor edge, but for me the NRA does more than enough "good" to outweigh any "bad". I'm sticking with the NRA AS WELL AS the other pro-gun organizations I belong to.
BTW dsmith, that was interesting and detailed info you posted and I was glad to read it all.
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
quote:That is because the FOPA is the single most important
law ever passed by Congress in the interest of protecting and promoting the
right to arms. This, folks,is the dung heap..
This is the bilge spewed out by those " Protecting your Gun Rights.."
"A well regulated militia,being necessary to the security of a free state,the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..." THIS, folks,is the rose...
Slimy Politicians and their sycophants can't make a rose out of a dung pile..no matter HOW they try to spray scent on it...
Also, you will notice that the NRA guy said that we should have licenses to carry concealed because we don't want to be labelled fanatics and oppose us. The GOA supports concealed carry without a license, as do I. Yet another way the NRA is opposing real "concealed carry" laws.
Interesting to note that this NRA official doesn't know that he resides in a "Republic" NOT a "Democracy". Geez,for crying out loud.....And to the "Republic" for which it stands......Give me a break.The NRA is the ones that told us to use the word Firearms instead of weapons,and they use Democracy instead of Republic.Good Grief! It is not just a play on words here there is a REALdifferance between the two.For those that do not understand the differance I am sure Highball or someone could provide a link.....(Longhunter shakes head here) SIGH........L.H.
Yeah. Specialized wording. Democracy instead of Republic. Or, the future Pledge "...One nation, under the Government...with liberty and justice for some."
Comments
quote:dsmith.......Lets face it my friend,the likelyhood of getting that turned back is allmost non-existant. I would have to agree with fox on this one(How about that!)in that we must at least slow/stop the momentum that the anti crowd has managed to build first and foremost.
dsmith wrote:
quote:I understand completely LH. It is the principle of the thing.
I am very glad to hear these comments from both of you guys. I have to admit, this forum has tarnished my view of the NRA. I used to pay my $35 per year to the NRA and get that "feel good" sensation. Now it is more of a necessary evil. I agree with longhunter that the political wing of the NRA has become cushy and is probably more concerned with shmoozing with politicians and preserving their own jobs than actually upholding the literal meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
However, I do think it is important to distinguish between the NRA-ILA and the other branches of the NRA. They do hold some nicely organized shooting events, they publish some very well-done magazines with great articles and info, and they do a great job at outreach, firearms education, and public relations. These are the reasons why I will still give them my $35 a year. I know part of that is going to Wayne LaPierre and his cronies, but that is the sacrifice I make for the other benefits. When funds allow, I will probably check out GOA.
Also, as you all have already concluded, we have to be realistic in this fight. Dsmith isn't gonna get his full-auto if we can't even get a semi-auto. We will probably have to first stop the onslaught of new gun legislation before we can repeal the existing laws, although I bet there are some surgical repeals that could be passed if we had the right politicians behind them.
JMHO,
WW
P.S. For those looking for money to throw around, check out the NRA Foudation. This is a 503c non-profit organization devoted to firearms education. By law they are prohibited from funding any political campaigns or lobbying. I use Marathon USA (www.musa.com) for my telephone long distance and they donate a portion of my phone bill to the NRA Foundation each month. Their phone rates aren't bad either. Better than supporting anti-gun AT&T or Sprint. Also for car insurance AIG Direct (www.aigdirect.com) offers NRA member discounts. Do NOT use Progressive as your car insurance, they are openly anti-gun and their president is a rabid socialist.
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
---My Comment---
I saw on your About-NRA-ILA page the following quote:
In 1986, the NRA and millions of gun owners nationwide applauded as the Firearms
Owners' Protection Act was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan.
--End Quote--
Any way, I'd like you to know that the FOPA is the reason that no law abiding
individual (who does not have a business selling machineguns to police) can
register a machinegun made after 1986. It seems that your orginization not only
supported the original machine gun ban, the NFA, it also supportet the NFA's
expansion into the FOPA. I want to know: does the NRA support private citizens
owning machine guns? It seems you supported every machine gun ban to come your
way.
Therefore, I do not plan to renew my membership. I have switched over to the Gun
Owners of America. They represent my no-compromise attitude. Maybe if you start
opposing the NFA and the anti-gun amendments of the FOPA, and start fighting for
the rights of private citizens who want to own machine guns, I will rejoin.
As a side note, the full auto gun I would like to register will now cost well
over $13,000 because of these bans.
---NRA Comment
Thank you for contacting the NRA-ILA. Most gun owners would disagree with your
apparent opinion that the only provision of the FOPA worthy of your attention is
its machine gun provision. That is because the FOPA is the single most important
law ever passed by Congress in the interest of protecting and promoting the
right to arms.
FOPA eliminated several portions of the Gun Control Act that had served no
crime-fighting purpose, while creating unnecessary obstacles to individuals'
exercise of their right to acquire arms. For example, FOPA eliminated the total
prohibition on individuals acquiring long guns outside their state of residence.
It eliminated the record-keeping requirement on purchases of handgun ammunition.
It gave federal protection to individuals transporting their firearms across
state lines. It stipulated that people are not required to have federal firearm
licenses to occasionally sell a gun from their collection. It allowed dealers to
conduct business at gun shows. It prohibited the use of federally-mandated gun
sale records for gun registration.
You are simply incorrect when you suggest that NRA "supported every machine gun
ban that came your way." There has been only one federal machine gun ban, and
NRA did not support it. As noted, NRA's FCRLDF attempted to get the Supreme
Court to overturn the ban. If someone told you differently, they were either
misinformed or lying to you.
It is unfortunate that you have left NRA. It is NRA with which legislators work
to get good laws passed and bad laws eliminated.
---My Second Comment
The NRA may have tried to overturn the NFA, I'm not sure. However, they
supported the full ban in 1986. If the NRA wants to take away the
machineguns that are already owned (FOPA II?) I don't want it to be done
with my money. It is hard enough to save up the $5,000 for an Uzi or the
$13,000 for an MP5.
Also, here is something that bothers me from 1934:
NRA President's Testimony During Congressional Debate
of the National Firearms Act of 1934
Introduction by Angel Shamaya
Director@KeepAndBearArms.com
Transcript from U.S. Government Printing Office
March 4, 2004
KeepAndBearArms.com -- Congressional hearings over the National Firearms Act
of 1934 (H.R.9066) took place April 16 & 18 and May 14, 15, & 16 of 1934.
Then-NRA President Karl T. Frederick testified on behalf of the National
Rifle Association (NRA). His testimony is below and includes the text in
full plus scanned images of each page.
Before you read the full transcript, your attention is drawn to a few of
excerpts that might interest you as a friend of the original meaning,
purpose and intent of the Second Amendment. Some NRA supporters are fond of
saying that the NRA was not involved in gun-related legislative activities
that far back. Somehow, they believe that repeating that myth often enough
will make it true.
NRA President Frederick's testimony began by explaining that he had "been
giving this subject of firearms regulations study and consideration over a
period of 15 years" and that "the suggestions resulting from that study of
mine...have resulted in the adoption in many States of regulatory provisions
suggested by us." He later described his active role in helping pass D.C.'s
then-recent, ultra-stringent gun controls. Having helped enact gun control
legislation was a matter of pride for NRA's president -- as you shall see
below. The D.C. gun controls of which he candidly boasted included the
following provisions, among others:
* prohibited carrying a concealed pistol without a license -- with an
exemption, of course, for law enforcement officers
* justification for getting licensed to carry a firearm if "applicant has
good reason to fear injury to his person or property" -- and the license
application process included a mugshot, treating lawful gun owners like
common criminals
* a two-day waiting period to purchase a handgun -- with an exemption, of
course, for law enforcement officers -- even though violent stalkers don't
tend to wait to attack
* required thorough record-keeping by gun dealers, of all transactions and
every buyer
* required that the seller deliver all of a buyer's personal information to
the police within hours of the transaction, including the make, model and
serial number of the firearm
* mandated that gun dealers be licensed at the discretion of the police
* banned altering firearms' serial numbers or other identifying marks
The copy of the text of that law, which the NRA had helped enact, begins on
page 45 below. Frederick described the law as "the uniform firearms act
which we [the NRA] sponsored" -- and submitted the full copy to the
congressmen debating the enactment of NFA'34. The Washington D.C. gun
controls mentioned in brief above were approved on July 8, 1932 -- nearly
two years before the NRA's President gave the following testimony.
Mr. Frederick's testimony before Congress included a variety of questions
from the elected officials present that day. The following question was
asked by Congressman CLEMENT C. DICKINSON, Missouri, of the Committee on
Ways and Means:
"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?"
Notice that Rep. Dickinson used the phrase "right of a person," as opposed
to "right of a State." In 1934, it was commonly understood that the Second
Amendment's right of the people meant just that: people. Person is the
singular of people. The congressman's question was a natural one to ask.
Here is how the NRA's president responded:
"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." [emphasis added]
The National Firearms Act of 1934 was a virtual ban on machineguns,
short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles and sound suppressors -- a
ban for commoners, that is. It ultimately placed a $200 transfer tax on
these products (with the usual exception for law enforcement officers, of
course). Only the well-to-do could afford that kind of money -- especially
for shotguns that were going for five or ten dollars and sound suppressors
that were even cheaper. At that time, you could get a brand new, high
quality machinegun for around a hundred bucks and a worn one for cheaper.
Tripling the price overnight put these already-expensive weapons out of
reach for the average Depression Era gun owner.
A decade and a half devoted to the study of (and methodical, proud
implementation of) gun control regulation, yet the NRA President had not
given any serious thought to how the Second Amendment rights of NRA members
and gun owners at large might be affected by a machinegun and short-barreled
shotgun ban -- even though he knew he'd be testifying before Congress on the
proposed legislation. Furthermore, as his testimony shows, he also believed
that the States could ban firearms without violating the Second Amendment.
Before you dig in to the full transcript, here's another statement the NRA's
President made that day:
MR. FREDERICK: ... "I have never believed in the general practice of
carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. ... I do not believe in the general
promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only
under licenses" [emphasis added]
You'll find that section of his testimony on page 59, below.
But before you read on, take a moment and replace the words "weapons" and
"guns" with "Bible" and "religious materials" in the above quote and see how
it sounds. To save you the time in transposing the words yourself, here is
the same quote with the words replaced as suggested:
"I have never believed in the general practice of carrying Bibles. I seldom
carry one. ... I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of
religious materials. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under
licenses"
Religious texts are covered by the First Amendment. Firearms are covered by
the Second Amendment. The analogy seems quite fair.
NOTE OF HISTORICAL INTEREST: As a matter of purely historical interest,
Frederick's testimony took place on April 18, 1934 -- the exact same day
Adolf Hitler named J von Ribbentrop as Germany's "Ambassador for
Disarmament." See: http://www.hiphistory.com/e/1934/apr18.65305.html and
http://www.hiphistory.com/d/apr18.html. That's not to suggest a relationship
between the two events, of course -- that would be silly. But history buffs
might find it rather intriguing. NFA'34 is the foundation for all federal
gun control and has been used in courts to justify many state gun controls
-- and gun control is clearly about disarmament. Odd timing. Almost as odd
as the fact that the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968 was copied from the Nazi
Firearms Act of 1938. But coincidences happen, and this is surely just
another weird one.
Finally, if you've been misled to believe that the Second Amendment was not
intended to protect the weapons affected by the National Firearms Act of
1934, do yourself a big favor and read: U.S. v. Miller and Short-Barreled
Shotguns by Brian Puckett. If the U.S. Supreme Court ever decides to give a
fair hearing to the Second Amendment grievances the people have been trying
to bring in court, Puckett's article will be highly useful as evidence to
undo the damage the oft-misapplied Miller case has wrought on gun rights.
Miller challenged NFA'34 up to the Supreme Court, resulting in a truly
bizarre ruling that has been used to abuse gun owners ever since.
---NRA Second Response
Regrettably, you misread what I sent you previously, or you are deliberately
misstating NRA's position. The NRA's FCRLDF attempted to overturn the 1986
provision.
---My Third Letter
It is good that the NRA tried to overturn parts of the FOPA. However I
believe the 1934 quote is real. I don't want to hold stuff that happened in
the 1930s against the NRA of today. You said that the NRA tried to overturn
parts of the FOPA. That would be a good thing. I don't hear much from the
NRA trying to fix this problem. What exactly did the NRA do to end the
anti-gun parts of the FOPA?
---NRA Third Response
Sir: To be precise, there is only one anti-gun provision in the FOPA and, as I
have told you already, NRA attempted to have that provision overturned in court.
Currently, the debate in Congress and among the public generally, has shifted to
semi-automatic firearms. There is no support in Congress or among the public to
liberalize laws pertaining to fully-automatic firearms at this time. Groups and
individuals who demand liberalization of laws pertaining to fully-automatic
firearms run the risk of alienating the public toward pro-RKBA positions
generally. Similarly, groups and individuals who oppose permit-based carry laws,
claiming that the only law acceptable to them is one allowing carrying without a
permit, run the risk of alienating the public. These groups and individuals fail
to realize that America is a democracy, and to achieve improvements in
gun-related laws requires obtaining the trust and support of the public, a
process which sometimes cannot be achieved overnight.
The NRA's approach has been validated by experience. Permit-based carry laws
have enabled us to demonstrate that gun owners can be trusted to carry guns in
public, proving that anti-gun activists have been wrong all along and
discrediting them as fanatics. In that battle, the anti-gunners have lost with
the public.
Similarly, we look forward to the expiration of the federal "assault weapon" law
against many semi-automatic firearms, knowing that it will not be followed by a
dramatic increase in crime, which will again prove how wrong and fanatic the
anti-gunners have been.
As gun owners prove themselves worthy of trust, and anti-gunners prove
themselves not worthy of trust, we will win with the public generally.
---End Comments
So, what the NRA told me, was either that I misstated their quote from the 1934 president (I trust the second amendment foundation more than NRA). They also said that they tried to repeal the damage they did to me but failed (then why'd they do it to me to begin with?).
They also said that we shouldn't try to legalize full autos so we don't lose public support! They already lost all the public support they have to lose. Oh well, if they ever decide whose side they are on, maybe I will join them again.
BTW dsmith, that was interesting and detailed info you posted and I was glad to read it all.
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
law ever passed by Congress in the interest of protecting and promoting the
right to arms. This, folks,is the dung heap..
This is the bilge spewed out by those " Protecting your Gun Rights.."
"A well regulated militia,being necessary to the security of a free state,the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..." THIS, folks,is the rose...
Slimy Politicians and their sycophants can't make a rose out of a dung pile..no matter HOW they try to spray scent on it...