3 ms·
I wish to nitpick your discription of the 1930s federal gun law as taking away the ability of most people to own combat firearms. That law was rather carefull
by RobGR 17y ago
I wish to nitpick your discription of the 1930s federal gun law as taking away the ability of most people to own combat firearms. That law was rather carefully crafted to try to avoid taking away the right to own "combat" firearms, because those firearms are exactly the ones to which the 2d amendment would apply. Rather, it focused on cannons and bombs, which they could argue were not personal arms, and on what it called "tools of assassination", silenced weapons and automatic weapons. Automatic weapons were not common combat firearms at the time, most soldiers would have rifles that were bolt action, a few semi-automatic.
At the time the law was passed the New Dealers were fighting the Supreme Court, which was overturning a lot of their grand plans, so the gun law was crafted with that in mind. It doesn't even technically ban the "class III" weapons, it just requires an excise tax which is difficult to pay. It is still probably an unconstitutional law, and it's benefits in fighting crime are probably not very big -- the old tommy gun gangsters of the 1930s were not driven out of business by lack of automatic weapons, they were tracked down and killed and arrested by traditional police work (some of which was unconstitutional in other ways).
A larger objection I have is to your claim "we've already mostly lost out ability to enact forceful change. Those days are gone." I think the general trend from 1776 to now, has been towards a more just, more democratic, more ideal society. There are major deviations on the way, and we are currently regressing, but still ahead of where we were in 1960, I think.
I also think robot technology will not always benefit just the rich and powerful in conflicts. Hobbiests can already build model aircraft which carry a WRT54G and do auto-pilot; when Palestinians hack a cell phone onto a model plane and send a few ounces of incendiary or a grenade on a long, slow trip to be fairly precisely delivered via GPS or cell tower positioning, then you will know the temporary imbalence is ending.
- DanielBMarkham 17y agoI think you misunderstood me. I agree that society is more just now -- a lot of progress has been made. By "forceful change" I meant the government is no longer so afraid of armed civilians as it was, say, during the Whiskey Rebellion. Jefferson's quip that "A little rebellion now and then... is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government." hardly seems apt in its original meaning. Very interesting piece of history regarding the 1930s laws. Thanks for the correction.
- shpxnvz 17y agoit just requires an excise tax which is difficult to pay For anyone interested, it's not actually very difficult to get the NFA tax stamp. The cost is a flat $200 per regulated item (each automatic weapon or sound suppressor counts) but for an individual you do have to get approval in writing from a local Chief Law Enforcement Officer; a local Chief of Police or Sheriff will do. A great deal of local agencies are not too keen on having citizens with NFA weapons, however if the weapon is to be transferred to a valid trust, there is no requirement for local approval (1). Of course, you then have to wait for the BATFE to actually get around to processing your application, which can take months. The real problem with NFA automatic weapons is scarcity - only automatic weapons manufactured prior to 1986 are allowed for civilian ownership, so interested parties are limited to existing stock. (1) Note that a state or locality may, and often do, have more strict regulation (or outright bans) than the federal government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act