Why SBR/SBS included in NFA of 1934?

[ranb]

Since 2011 I've been working on getting an SBR bill passed in Washington State. Hundreds of letters and e-mails, meetings with legislators, speaking at hearings and purchasing crime data finally resulted in the House Judiciary Committee chair killing the damn bill today with two days left on the cutoff calendar.

I was told earlier today that I was completely unsuccessful in hiding my extreme disappointment when talking to a sympathetic committee member after the hearing. There is a very slim chance that the Speaker of the House may pull the bill for a vote on the floor; not holding my breath though.

I have months to figure out some means of convincing Representative Jinkins to give the bill a chance next session in January 2015. When I met with her back in January she did ask why SBR's were so strictly controlled by the feds. I did explain that criminal use of chopped down long guns lead to the restrictions but the same questions were posed by her tonight at the hearing. The answers were given by another person who spoke at the hearing, I thought the answer "because criminals used them" was inadequate.

I thought I might make a short educational video on why SBR's were restricted back in 1934, how easy it is for criminals to make one with a hacksaw and how much of a pain it is for us to pay a $200 tax and wait 11 months for authorization to buy one. I did the same thing for silencers back in 2010, I made them look like boring safety devices. I want to do the same with SBR/SBS.

I need an authoritative source showing why SBR/SBS were included in the NFA of 1934. Thanks.

Ranb

[rimshaker]

Simple, because shorter barrels are easier to conceal and transport. Nothing really more to it. Keep up the good work!

[whiterussian1974]

Simple, because shorter barrels are easier to conceal and transport. Nothing really more to it. Keep up the good work!

Agreed. Rifle power ammo, in concealable (twice large pistol) size package.
I gave a Public Speaking Info Speech in college showing that (as of 1991) cars killed 1,000s of people for every 1 gun death, and bathtub/swimming pool deaths were about 650:1.
Yet no push to require CLEO signoff, many hrs of training, and high Gov't fees for bathtub/swimmingpool possession.

[whiterussian1974]

Another tack might be to point out that a pistol w a shoulder stock is defined as SBR. Yet all it does is stabilize the platform.

Do they want inaccurate self defense firearms? Are they hoping to jeopardize bystanders?

I don't know what WA state law allows, but maybe sue the individual legislators for jeopardizing Public Safety. Though some States immunize lawmakers from Civil Torts and Class Action Suits. Court Settlements CAN carry greater Force of Law than original legislation.

Naturally this is only if reason fails. It's better to bring them along willingly, than make permenant enemies.
AND lawsuits also give politicians public cover. They can claim that their hands were forced, when in reality they just wanted an excuse.

[ranb]

I've already supplied a document showing how banning SBS/SBS by the state is unconstitutional at the federal and state level. It was supplied by a lawyer in another state, I modified it and it was checked out by a lawyer in WA. Suing is not an option as the small group of people supporting the bill does not include any lawyers or those who can afford to pay one to sue the state.

The question was asked in committee why SBR's are strictly controlled by the NFA of 1934. I need the historical reasons from the 1930's why this was done. Thanks.

Ranb

[whiterussian1974]

Suing is not an option as the small group of people supporting the bill does not include any lawyers or those who can afford to pay one to sue the state.

The question was asked in committee why SBR's are strictly controlled by the NFA of 1934. I need the historical reasons from the 1930's why this was done. Thanks.

Can you ask any of the legis whether they are looking at this from a ? of political pushback? They might just want an excuse for political cover. A coordinated lawsuit allows them to reach a settlement where they agree to do what both sides already want, just don't want the public to know this was agreed upon.
Unions and Eco groups frequently use this technique. In Houston the City Council wanted more black Police. So, they had the Union sue them so that they could agree to ONLY hire blacks to fill the next X-many slots, and promote blacks to supervisor ranks even if they can't pass promotions tests.
Firemen in some states have had this same problem. Hispanics, Asians, Whites scored highly on tests, so the tests were thrown out so that people who didn't pass the tests would get hired.
Have you contacted NRA Legal? Maybe they would like the publicity of State Gov't reversing the Law.
1934 NFA originated because of a rash of bank robberies, Rum Running, etc resulting from Economic Depression, Prohibition, and the huge # of Military Surplus weapons that were never sent to Europe. The Congress rushed to limit a # of blanket classes of items, and never sunsetted the laws. If it had been a 10 yr ban, the problem would have ceased when WW2 stimulated the Economy.

[John K]

The original draft of the National Firearms Act of 1934 included ALL CONCEALABLE ARMS, including handguns.

[Bendersquint]

The original draft of the National Firearms Act of 1934 included ALL CONCEALABLE ARMS, including handguns.

Correct!

Handguns were removed from the NFA list because they were too common so they stuck with the rarer firearms.

[ranb]

Can you ask any of the legis whether they are looking at this from a ? of political pushback?

The House Judiciary Chair does not want to make any type of gun more readily accessible to the public,

A coordinated lawsuit .....

I do not have the means or know-how to accomplish any type of lawsuit. I'm unable to locate any local attorneys who are willing to do it pro-bono.

Have you contacted NRA Legal? Maybe they would like the publicity of State Gov't reversing the Law.

I've spent years trying to get the NRA's attention on easing NFA restrictions in WA. They showed absolutely no interest in the silencer bill as far as I could tell. I did get to speak to the regional NRA rep (Brian Judy) when he asked me for advice on a silencer hunting bill in MT. I managed to get to talk to Brian Judy on the phone for a short time several weeks ago but he was not able to offer any good advice other than keep trying. The NRA does show up for some of the other gun bills like the AWB, range protection, I-594.

Ranb

[ranb]

Can you ask any of the legis whether they are looking at this from a ? of political pushback?

The House Judiciary Chair does not want to make any type of gun more readily accessible to the public,

A coordinated lawsuit .....

I do not have the means or know-how to accomplish any type of lawsuit. I'm unable to locate any local attorneys who are willing to do it pro-bono.

Have you contacted NRA Legal? Maybe they would like the publicity of State Gov't reversing the Law.

I've spent years trying to get the NRA's attention on easing NFA restrictions in WA. They showed absolutely no interest in the silencer bill as far as I could tell. I did get to speak to the regional NRA rep (Brian Judy) when he asked me for advice on a silencer hunting bill in MT. I managed to get to talk to Brian Judy on the phone for a short time several weeks ago but he was not able to offer any good advice other than keep trying. The NRA does show up for some of the other gun bills like the AWB, range protection, I-594.

Handguns were removed from the NFA list because they were too common so they stuck with the rarer firearms.

I understand that. It is one thing for Randy Bragge of Belfair WA to tell a Senator or Representative why certain firearms are controlled by the NFA of 1934, it is another to show them a document that says the same thing. So far I'm not able to find any written legislative intent from 1934 or at least some sort of authoritative documents about the topic other than some court cases I need to read further and try to understand.

Thanks for the input.

Ranb

[Bendersquint]

Handguns were removed from the NFA list because they were too common so they stuck with the rarer firearms.

I understand that. It is one thing for Randy Bragge of Belfair WA to tell a Senator or Representative why certain firearms are controlled by the NFA of 1934, it is another to show them a document that says the same thing. So far I'm not able to find any written legislative intent from 1934 or at least some sort of authoritative documents about the topic other than some court cases I need to read further and try to understand.

Thanks for the input.

Ranb

Best of luck finding something as authoritative as you are seeking, I have never found anything to that level. They didn't keep alot of records back then so that is going to hinder things.

[whiterussian1974]

Best of luck finding something as authoritative as you are seeking, I have never found anything to that level. They didn't keep alot of records back then so that is going to hinder things.

Try Newspaper articles. They are an indirect method of showing what popular opinion and legislative intent were.
Plus yu can pick and choose your data points, instead of just throwing a bunch of documents at them and expecting that they will correctly interprete them.

[ranb]

I was also unable to find any legislative intent on the WA silencer law back in the 1930's. I'm probably going to have to make it a 2nd amendment / section 24 (WA constitution) issue. Given how the 2nd amendment is ignored, it is not a real winner of an argument right now in WA.

Ranb

[telero]

When I met with her back in January she did ask why SBR's were so strictly controlled by the feds. I did explain that criminal use of chopped down long guns lead to the restrictions but the same questions were posed by her tonight at the hearing. The answers were given by another person who spoke at the hearing, I thought the answer "because criminals used them" was inadequate.

I need an authoritative source showing why SBR/SBS were included in the NFA of 1934. Thanks.

Ranb

Well, besides "because criminals use them," there isn't much other reason that I've seen published. According to the ATF NFA Handbook, a joint effort between the ATF and NFATCA (for what that's worth), it's the criminal use, and Congress wanting to show their authority to tax.

See page 1 of the ATF NFA Handbook http://www.atf.gov/files/publications/d ... 5320-8.pdf:

"As the legislative history of the law discloses, its underlying purpose was to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions in NFA firearms. Congress found these firearms to pose a significant crime problem because of their frequent use in crime, particularly the gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre."

At least that's authoritative in that it was published by a government agency.


The best approach seems to be the one you are taking, showing how easy it is for a criminal make an illegal firearm, and how much work someone that will comply with the (federal) law has to go through. You could also argue that since the NFA hasn't really changed that much in 80 years, that it must have worked, so why bother having further restrictions at the state level. Honestly though, I'm sure that the law did nothing to stop those people that were going to make/use SBRs and SBSs, but it did give additional punishment for those that did and were caught.

I do have a couple questions about how the law change for SBRs is intended to be implemented. From my understanding, previously in Washington silencers were legal to own, built, possess, and transport at the state level, but they were not allowed to be used, correct? So the change that made silencers completely legal at the state level just removed the restriction on using them. So in the case of silencers in Washington state, there is no law against them at all (at the state level). That's just my understanding of it, please correct me if I'm wrong. Would the SBR law change work in the same way, removing all state level restrictions against them? Or would it follow many of the other states that would leave (federally) unregistered SBRs illegal at the state level as well, with the proof of federal registration being the exception to the state law that makes them illegal? If the state level restrictions are to be removed, that could lessen the burden on the state to have to prosecute someone for an SBR crime by allowing them to pass the responsibility on to the federal government. Not sure if that would be seen as a plus or not.

Also, is this bill specific to rifles, or does it include shotguns as well?

[ranb]

RCW 9.41.190 says that all SBR, SBS and MG are contraband. Exceptions are made for licensed dealers, military and police while on duty and residents grandfathered in prior to July 1, 1994. SB 5956 was for SBR only, the sponsor did not think he had enough support for SBS to be included; turns out he was right. The bill would have just made another exception for registering the sbr.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdo ... s/5956.pdf

I have the NFA handbook downloaded at home. I'll probably use that as well as section 24 of the WA constitution to make my argument. Thanks.

Ranb

[rimshaker]

Perhaps you can present your NFA-34 case from a different angle, the $200 tax stamp.

Congressmen, even back then, knew it was impossible to ban firearms outright. So they did the next best thing, regulate them by taxation. The extra $200 pretty much alienated anyone in the 1930's (and 40's and 50's, etc) with common means to acquire an MG/SBR/SBS/silencer. $200 in 1934 dollars is roughly $3500 today! (from the Federal Reserve's own inflation calculator)

If Congress was smart back then, and wrote the NFA to adjust accordingly for inflation....would any of us buy a silencer today, plus $3500 ?!?

[Bendersquint]

Perhaps you can present your NFA-34 case from a different angle, the $200 tax stamp.

Congressmen, even back then, knew it was impossible to ban firearms outright. So they did the next best thing, regulate them by taxation. The extra $200 pretty much alienated anyone in 1934 with common means to acquire an MG/SBR/SBS/silencer. $200 in 1934 dollars is roughly $3500 today! (from the Federal Reserve's own inflation calculator)

If Congress was smart back then, and wrote the NFA to adjust accordingly for inflation....would any of us buy a silencer today, plus $3500??

That has the possibility of backfiring in a really bad way.

I would be cautious about using that as an argument.

[a_canadian]

If Congress was smart back then, and wrote the NFA to adjust accordingly for inflation....would any of us buy a silencer today, plus $3500 ?!?

The very rich, sure, no problem. And of course criminals would continue to make their own or purchase them through underground channels as they have for ages, that is, those few criminals who actually bother using suppressors. Most don't. But the average shooting enthusiast who simply wants a more enjoyable (quiet) shooting experience? They'd have to do without and use heavy duty ear protection.

[doubloon]

...
I have the NFA handbook downloaded at home. I'll probably use that as well as section 24 of the WA constitution to make my argument. Thanks.

Ranb

You might try researching from the angle of the Marble Game Getter which has a couple amendments associated with it because it was deemed to "have legitimate uses" and the 18" model because it was "not concealable". These modifications took place in 1938 and 1939 I think and there may be some supporting documentation to be found associated with these efforts that could be leveraged.