#DC FFL | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

thecoroutfitters · 7 years ago

Link

Written by John Hertig on The Prepper Journal.

Editors Note: This is the second of a two-part article on silencers by John Hertig. Part 1 was posted yesterday and provides valuable information that you should know before making any decisions. And don’t forget to vote in our current Prepper Journal Writing Contest!

So Should You Get a Suppressor?

The primary advantage to a suppressor is that it reduces the sound level of each shot so as to cause less hearing damage and annoyance to others. Using a suppressor in conjunction with hearing protection can make long, indoor shooting sessions more hearing safe and pleasant. And reduces the hearing damage from a few indoor shots without hearing protection. Perhaps the greatest benefit would be in hunting, where you would not need to wear hearing protection, and would have less noise to annoy the game or other people. But there are other benefits as well. Suppressors tend to reduce recoil, which makes the weapon easier and more pleasant to shoot, and significantly reduce muzzle blast, which can negatively affect both the shooter and those close by. If you are shooting from the prone position, reduced muzzle blast means reduced dust problems.

And suppressors also reduce muzzle flash, which helps preserve your vision when shooting in low light. Finally, some suppressors can change the sound of the shot so that in addition to being less loud, it is less “sharp” as well. In Europe, suppressors are not overly regulated, and at some shooting ranges, are required equipment.

But there are negative factors, as you might expect because relatively few shooters (in the USA) have suppressors.

A major downside is that commercially made suppressors are expensive. Because of the bureaucratic nonsense involved in getting one, the market is limited, and with the extra taxes and fees which manufacturers need to pay, they have to charge a high price to cover costs and research, which further limits the market. A center fire rifle caliber suppressor itself will probably have a list price of $600 to $1,600. Then there is the $200 tax and any dealer fees, and if you go that way, Trust costs. Of course, you can cut the cost significantly by making your own suppressor; you still have to go through the bureaucratic hoops and pay the $200 tax, but any other costs are just parts and your (only you, by law) labor. This could be under $30 dollars. It used to be popular to sell a device which screws onto your barrel and accepts an empty two liter pop bottle. It did not work all that well and the bottle quickly self-destructed, but it could be “enhanced” to make it work better. I’ve also heard of a similar adapter which allows screwing on an oil filter, but I have no idea how well it works. I’m surprised you can still get those adapters these days, but I found one place right off the bat which claims to sell them for $25 or so. It would not be legal to add the pop bottle and put it on (or even keep it ‘near’) the gun without the tax stamp, and I think it likely would be risky (without a legal alternate use) to even possess the adapter without the tax stamp. It probably would be better to go ahead and make a “real” suppressor as the performance would be better, it would be more durable, and the temptation to do without the tax stamp would be less. And that would make the higher cost worthwhile.

Once you receive the suppressor, you have to be careful to treat it as required by law, including if you ever want to get rid of it. This is one area where failing to dot all the “i”s and cross all the “t”s can have a seriously unhappy ending. For most NFA items, you are supposed to write the BATFE if you are going to take it out of your state, but it appears that is not necessary for short term jaunts with just a suppressor. Then again, who’s definition of “short term” applies?

Many suppressors force gas back through the ejection port due to “back pressure”, which is a source of noise and will bother your eyes (unless you are smart enough to be wearing protective glasses), as well as dirty the magazine and any rounds remaining in it. And if the suppressor screws on, some can unscrew themselves during use. Better ones either have a locking mechanism or tighten as you fire them. Some affect the point of aim; others not so much.

If you don’t want to mess with the BATFE or laws about suppressors, but do want to play with them, there is an interesting alternative. Because black powder muzzle loading weapons are considered “antiques” by the BATFE and thus not under their control, at least one company will sell, through the mail, without any tax or paperwork, a black powder rifle with integrated sound reduction device. Since it is integrated (cannot be removed and attached to a modern firearm), it is not considered a suppressor by the BATFE. Of course, California, New Jersey and Massachusetts are raising a fuss, so if you live there, you can’t get one currently. Illinois, New York and DC make you go through a FFL to get one, but seem to allow it currently.

(Editor’s Note: I have one and have fired it. The integrated “modifier” is a series of baffle chambers, like all suppressors, and this black powder rifle, in .50 cal, uses no wad as the wad residue will collect in the modifier and diminish its performance over time. The rounds are designed to sit on top of the compacted black powder with a cavity that is filled with the black powder when rammed home. NOT paying the $200 tax stamp and NOT doing all the required extra paperwork still brings a smile to my face.)

If cost is a problem, 22LR suppressors appear to be the least expensive option, with a list price of $200 to $500. Or occasionally you’ll find a “1/2 price” or better sale online. And keep an eye on the small companies; some of them are innovating like mad. A Texas company, rebelsilencers.com have “tubeless” suppressors, which mean the length (and thus the degree of quieting) can be easily changed. .22LR for $150 and .30 (good for any .30 caliber up to 300 Win Mag and any smaller caliber) for $300. And blackacestactical.com has the “Po Boy” line of rifle silencers for $199 each.

The Hearing Protection Act

There was a bill in Congress to remove suppressors from the NFA controls, allowing you to buy one exactly the same as buying a “regular” gun. This bill seemed to have had a pretty good chance, being good for people’s hearing and the environment and there being insignificant history of people using silencers in crimes. This bill died due to the Las Vegas shooting even though there was no suppressor involved directly or indirectly in that incident, since it was felt any pro-gun legislation would cause consternation amongst the feeble minded. Never mind the angst which anti-gun legislation would force on legal gun owners.

My Investigation

The costs of suppressors and annoyance of dealing with the BATFE have dissuaded me from getting a suppressor in the past, but then I got an offer from a place which was selling a major brand at half price. Apparently it was more the cost than the bureaucracy, and also the latest technology quickly fastens to and releases from the muzzle break rather than screwing on, so requires less fumbling and the gun does not look weird or have easily damaged threads when the suppressor is not installed. This was enough to tempt me, but before I got all my ducks in a row, they sold out. Thus, I decided to do in advance what I can so if I ever come across a deal like that again, I will be able to jump on it fast enough to take advantage.

First I went to a dealer I knew of right around the corner from me. The sign said they were closed, and looking through the windows, they looked really, really closed. This brings up an interesting point. What if the dealer who is holding your suppressor goes out of business or loses his license? It would likely be difficult to resolve; some people claim you own the silencer because you paid for it (keep your receipt!) and others claim that the store owns it because it has not been transferred to you yet (so you are just another creditor of the store). Fortunately, I knew of another place (big, with a long history) a few miles away. I got to fondle a few silencers; some of them were fairly heavy. The guy was able to answer my questions. Their transfer fee was $100, which included them filling out all the forms and taking the fingerprints and sending them where they need to go; there was no charge for these services if the suppressor was purchased from them. All I would need would be the two passport style photographs (like from Walgreens) and, if a Trust were used, two copies of the Trust document.

The fellow brought up an interesting point; .30 caliber suppressors actually work pretty good on a 5.56 as well. Neat; you can have one (heavy duty) suppressor and use it on all center fire rifles between .22 and .30 caliber.

Next I went looking for a Trust. I didn’t really find a local gun lawyer advertised who inspired confidence. I did find a Trust online which appears to be head and shoulders above the rest, and overcomes some of the problems with a “standard” NFA trust. This Trust is by Jim Willi, one of the top gun trust attorneys in Texas, and I could find only positive comments about him and his Trust. I could not understand how it could do what it says it can, so sent them an email. I actually got a call from Mr. Willi himself, who explained how it meets the letter of the new NFA regulations encouraged by a President Obama Executive Order. On the minus side of the new rules, the Trustees of the Trust now have to submit personal data, picture and fingerprints to the BATFE, but on the plus side, you don’t need CLEO approval any more, so your transfer can’t be blocked without cause (some CLEOs have been known to blanket refuse approval). It is still more involved than I hoped for, but much easier than I feared. Normally $130, it was on sale for $100. Before buying this (or probably any) Trust, make sure you have the full legal name of all the people who will be listed in the document, your own (hopefully), at least one Successor Trustee and at least one Primary Beneficiary. Including Secondary Beneficiaries might be a good idea in case all Primary Beneficiaries are unable to be used due to death, refusal or ineligibility. None of these people will have access to the suppressor until you die, so they don’t need to provide any information to the BATFE, sign the trust document, or even know they are listed in the Trust. You can also specify Co-Trustees in the original Trust, but then they will also have to send personal information, photo and fingerprints to the BATFE because they do have access to the suppressor. Plus, they must all sign the Trust document with you, in the presence of a notary, and removing them requires the Trust to be amended. It is easier to add or remove Co-Trustees in a separate document, and if they are added after the transfer is approved, they don’t need to submit anything to the BATFE until the next transfer is requested. You can add non-NFA guns to the Trust, which would also remove them from probate and public records, and would be useful if you ever decided to convert a regular gun to a NFA configuration. It might also be useful if some of the upcoming “assault weapon” legislation passes.

Now I should be ready for any future suppressor bargains. At any future time, I can:

1) Find a desired suppressor online or at a dealer

2) Make sure the dealer (still) does transfers for a reasonable price

3) Pay for the suppressor or order it to be sent to the dealer.

4) Have the dealer fill out the NFA paper work; I sign each copy and pay any fees and provide the $200 for the tax stamp

5) Provide two copies of the Trust document and passport style photos; They take my fingerprints

6) Wait for the tax stamp to be returned (per a call from the dealer)

7) Fill out form 4473

8) Take the suppressor home

9) Add Co-Trustees as desired (tax stamp should be approved before adding new Trustees but Trustees MUST be added before they have access to the suppressor)

Follow The Prepper Journal on Facebook!

The post Introduction to Silencers – Part 2 of 2 appeared first on The Prepper Journal.

from The Prepper Journal Don't forget to visit the store and pick up some gear at The COR Outfitters. How prepared are you for emergencies? #SurvivalFirestarter #SurvivalBugOutBackpack #PrepperSurvivalPack #SHTFGear #SHTFBag

#SHTF #TEOTWAWKI #MARTIALLAW #BUGOUT #PREPPERBAG #USAF #USSOCOM #ARMY #NAVY #SurvivalFirestarter #Sur

1 note · View note

thatssomeana · 4 years ago

Photo

What catmom does when she's ignoring me. Not cool. Very loud. 😹 #Purrfect #range location in the backyard. There's also a hill as the background, but the trees make it hard to see. We moved to #Washington months ago but are still waiting on #FFL transfer paperwork. WA recently made it harder for us to take in clients' guns, so we're stuck waiting on that, unfortunately. Could be worse, at least we don't live in Washington, DC. 😹 #securite #securité #guns #grayfoxranch #grayfoxgunsmithing #grayfoxgunsmiths #gun #guns #gunlover #loudnoises #loudnoise #gunsofinstagram #gunsgunsguns #gunsandgirls #gunsmithing #gunsafe #gunshop #gunlife #gunlovers #gunlove #gunlifestyle #gunsofig #gunsofinsta (at Rochester, Washington) https://www.instagram.com/p/CEAGJXwnERi/?igshid=1xiju5qmrqqui

0 notes

wanderer-chronicles · 5 years ago

Photo

And once again, the proposed Assault Weapons Ban - which in its original form redefined every modern semiautomatic as an "assault weapon" and outlawed them unilaterally without grandfathering or compensation - goes uncommented.

I mean, we can refute OP's post point by point - how background checks are already required for any sale processed by an FFL (which includes any internet or mail order sales), how person to person sales cannot be regulated without the creation of a registry since there's no way to prove that person A passed his Glock on to person B, that the so-called "loophole" was in fact the COMPROMISE antis insist pro-freedom advocates childishly refuse (in this case, in the 1968 GCA), that the proposed Background Check bill was so restrictive I could not lend a rifle to a hunting buddy or a pistol to my sister for home defense without going to a gun store and paying a transfer fee ($10-50, depending on the store) for them to log into NICS and give me a go-ahead. We can talk about how "one handgun a month" is a bill Virginia *had*, that did *nothing*, and was allowed to expire. How DC tried to implement one and it was struck down by a Federal Appeals court. We can point out how red flag laws can, are, and will be abused, how they're used as a weapon in divorce cases, in personal vendettas, how they've become a tactic - like SWATting - to remotely strike at people you disagree with.

All of this is gilding the lily. OP is lying, through omission, through commission, to paint those who defend their rights as childish and unreasonable - throwing temper tantrums over little infringements - to justify the "need" for further infringements. "If they freak out over these little, harmless steps" OP hints, "should we trust them with something so dangerous?"

21K notes · View notes

mmkprospects · 6 years ago

Photo

Reported from @Marvel and @comicbook James Gunn was rehired to Direct Guardians of the Galaxy 3 #GOTG3 What are your Thoughts? - - - - #jamesgunn #dc #marvel #suicidesquad #avengersendgame #movie #guardiansofthegalaxy #marvelstudios #instagram #captainmarvel #centuryfox #google #netflix #yearschallenge #farfromhome #oscar #leonardodicaprio #hollywood #studioes #thesuicidesquad #harleyquinn #trending #theacademy #gto #likeforlike #fotografer #egg #ffl #dccomics https://www.instagram.com/p/BvCmdNlFxxY/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=1u7c5669u379n

0 notes

3gunheather-blog · 6 years ago

Photo

How do you change minds? With hatred? With yelling and screaming? Nope. . . . Meet a few of the women from the DC Project . We go to DC each year to speak with our legislators in a grassroots movement of 2A women. Pro shooters, instructors, mothers, daughters, sisters, wives, girlfriends, grandmas and so on, that all believe in protecting the 2nd Amendment. We are a diverse group, from culture to background to political party and more, we find common ground in the protection of the 2nd Amendment, and we are slowly but surely changing minds. How do you help? Go to www.DCproject.info and sign up to shoot the DC Project Team Match or just donate! It’s going to be epic event and a very important year to sit down with our legislators and show them the real faces of the 2nd Amendment. #2alife #2ndamendment #2ndamendmentrights #2awomen #progun #2ndamendmentsupporter #2alife #strongwomen #ffl (at Fayetteville, North Carolina) https://www.instagram.com/p/Btw3f3gFe_P/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=684rcelia3xn

#2alife #2ndamendment #2ndamendmentrights #2awomen #progun #2ndamendmentsupporter #strongwomen #ffl

0 notes

lachandadupard · 6 years ago

Photo

Repost @reggiedupard Happy Dr. Martin Luther King Jr Day! We will always keep the memory and all of his contributions to our nation alive in our youth! FAITH, UNITY, NON-VIOLENCE. Thanks to amazing donors and volunteers who believe in our @fitandfaithfulliving mission! #MLKDay #MartinLutherKingJrDay #Repost @fitandfaithfulliving Happy Martin Luther King Jr. Day! We will always keep the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and all of his contributions to our nation alive in our youth! Pictures from our enrichment Washington, DC youth trip! #RainDidNotStopUs #WeAreFFL #FFL #Dallas #DallasNonprofit #DFW #DallasKids #dallastx #enrichment #vision #wholistic #wholistickids #family #GrowSouth #SEL #mindfulness #BGCD #Community #Partners #Youth #WashingtonDC #travel #donorsrock #Health #fitness (at Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial) https://www.instagram.com/p/Bs6_-7kBQet/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=yu5wf6w8yozf

0 notes

fitandfaithfulliving · 6 years ago

Photo

Happy Martin Luther King Jr. Day! “I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture of their minds, and dignity, equality, and freedom for their spirits. I believe that what self-centered men have torn down, men other-centered can build up I still believe that one day mankind will bow before the altars of God and be crowned triumphant over war and bloodshed, and nonviolent redemptive goodwill will proclaim the rule of the land.” ~Martin Luther King Jr. We will always remember Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. @martinlutherkingjrnps and all of his contributions to our nation! See more pictures from our youth trip to Washington, DC @martinlutherkingjrnps ! . . . . #WeAreFFL #FFL #Dallas #DallasNonprofit #DFW #DallasKids #fitness #Afterschool #igdallas #dallastx #enrichment #vision #wholistic #wholistickids #family #health #GrowSouth #SEL #mindfulness #WeAreFFL #BGCD #Community #Partners #Youth #WashingtonDC #enrichment #travel #donorsrock #Health #Fitness #WashingtonNationals #Museums #OakCliff #RainDidNotStopUs (at Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial) https://www.instagram.com/p/Bs5rqVgh2k6/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=rzu07v6rkm1i

0 notes

minarquia · 6 years ago

Text

50 años de control federal de las armas de fuego: La Ley de Control de Armas de 1968, por Mises Hispano.

Hoy se cumple el 50 aniversario de la aprobación de la Ley de control de armas de 1968. La Ley del control de armas es la principal ley federal que rige el comercio interestatal de armas de fuego en los Estados Unidos. Específicamente, la Ley del control de armas prohíbe el comercio de armas de fuego a través de líneas estatales, excepto entre los fabricantes con licencia, los concesionarios y los importadores. Bajo la Ley del control de armas, cualquier persona o compañía que desee participar en actividades comerciales relacionadas con la fabricación o importación de armas de fuego y municiones, o la venta de armas de fuego interestatales e intraestatales debe poseer una Licencia Federal de Armas de Fuego.

A pesar de la jerga procesal, la promulgación de la Ley del control de armas de 1968 fue un momento decisivo en la política de los Estados Unidos. Fue la primera ley que puso el debate sobre el control de armas en el mapa.

Contexto político de la Ley del control de armas

Cabe señalar que la Ley del control de armas no fue la primera parte del control de armas aprobada a nivel federal. En 1934, el presidente Franklin Delano Roosevelt firmó la Ley Nacional de Armas de Fuego de 1934. La primera ley integral sobre armas de fuego a nivel federal, la Ley Nacional de Armas de Fuego gravaba impuestos y ordenaba el registro de ciertas armas de fuego, como ametralladoras, rifles recortados y escopetas recortadas. Esta ley fue aprobada bajo el pretexto de abordar la violencia al estilo de la mafia durante la prohibición. Pero una revisión cuidadosa de la era del New Deal muestra cómo la Ley Nacional de Armas de Fuego era simplemente otra pieza del programa de ingeniería social sin precedentes de FDR.

Esta Ley Nacional de Armas de Fuego fue seguida por la Ley Federal de Armas de Fuego de 1938, que creó un precursor del sistema FFL de 1968 de la Ley del control de armas. A pesar de las invasiones del gobierno a los derechos de las armas, el gobierno federal se mantuvo alejado de nuevas regulaciones durante las próximas tres décadas.

Una vez que llegó la década de 1960, la política de armas volvió a sus raíces intervencionistas. Los asesinatos de John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy y Martin Luther King hicieron que los legisladores federales repensaran la política de armas. En el caso de JFK, hubo un alboroto considerable sobre cómo su asesino, Lee Harvey Oswald, pudo adquirir su arma de fuego mediante la compra por correo. A pesar de que el presidente Lyndon Baines Johnson no pudo obtener licencias y registro de armas en la mesa, logró que el control de armas se convirtiera en ley.

El nacimiento de los cabildeos pro-armas

La aprobación de la Ley del control de armas no fue sin su justa porción de oposición. Grupos como la National Rifle Association, que tradicionalmente se centraba en la conservación y los nichos externos, se vieron obligados a adoptar posiciones nominales a favor de las armas. Sin embargo, la NRA no estaba sola. Grupos como Gun Owners of America se enfocaron en posicionarse como una alternativa “sin compromiso” a la NRA. A principios de la década de 1980, los grupos de presión pro-armas se convertirían en actores fundamentales en el interminable circo de la política de DC.

El aparato de control de armas sigue creciendo

En los círculos a favor de las armas, está de moda presumir de cómo la Segunda Enmienda se ha mantenido firme frente a las infracciones del Estado. En un sentido relativo, esto es algo exacto. En comparación con el sector de la salud, los derechos de armas de fuego son, en algunos aspectos, más seguros. Pero en el clima actual de la política administrativa, la complacencia es el mejor amigo del crecimiento del Estado. Y por lo que parece, hay algunos desarrollos preocupantes que los dueños de armas no pueden ignorar.

La aprobación del Ley del control de armas de 1968 no solo le dio al gobierno federal un punto de entrada al comercio de armas de fuego, sino que también sirvió de trampolín para futuras intervenciones como la Ley de prevención de la violencia con armas de mano de Brady de 1993. La Ley Brady aprovecha el sistema FFL de la ley del control de armas al exigir que todos los vendedores de armas de fuego autorizados realicen una verificación de antecedentes de los posibles compradores. La Ley Brady también allanó el camino para la creación del la Ley Nacional de Armas de Fuego del Sistema Nacional de Verificación de Antecedentes Instantáneos (NICS por sus siglas en inglés). El NICS es una característica integral del aparato federal de control de armas y ha existido durante dos décadas, a pesar de que las investigaciones demuestran que ha sido ineficaz para disuadir el crimen.

Estas intrusiones gubernamentales no están exentas de su parte justa de consecuencias perturbadoras. Según el investigador de armas John Lott, el número de traficantes de armas con licencia federal ha disminuido de 283.000 en 1993 a 118.000 en 2013. Los mayores costos de licencias jugaron un papel importante en la valoración de los traficantes de armas más pequeños. Esta tendencia probablemente continuará a medida que el estado regulador crezca día a día.

Y las infracciones a los derechos de armas continúan. El gobierno federal recientemente incorporó al Fix NICS en un impopular proyecto de ley Omnibus. Fix NICS mejora el sistema actual de verificación de antecedentes y pone en riesgo el federalismo al incentivar a los gobiernos estatales a entregar los registros privados de los propietarios de armas. Para agregar insultos a las lesiones, la Administración de Trump continúa su movimiento para prohibir potencialmente las reservas de impacto. Además de eso, la ATF ha incrementado su aplicación de las leyes federales sobre armas de fuego. El simple hecho de vender un arma sin el papeleo correcto aprobado por el Estado puede llevar a alguien a una jaula federal. Como es la vida en el “statu quo” actual de leyes y regulaciones arbitrarias.

Las ideas siguen siendo clave

A medida que pasan los días, los derechos de las armas parecen estar cayendo gradualmente por el camino de la microgestión estatista. Pero hay algo más fundamental en esta tendencia que el cliché aforismo de la vigilancia eterna y las estrategias convencionales de activismo político. Realmente se reduce a la batalla de las ideas. Jim Ostrowski tiene razón en su evaluación de la estrategia actual de los activistas de los derechos de armas de fuego que dependen exclusivamente del cabildeo y las elecciones. Simplemente no es suficiente. Incluso los agentes políticos más experimentados deben enfrentar el hecho de que las malas ideas preceden a las malas políticas.

La Ley del control de armas es un niño de la mentalidad del New Deal y la Great Society que coloca al Estado como un administrador omnipotente de los asuntos humanos. Se necesita un cambio de paradigma en las ideas para liberarse de esta visión de arriba hacia abajo de la sociedad. Hasta entonces, los cabildeos se enfrentan a una batalla cuesta arriba.

Un primer paso sólido es que los propietarios de armas de fuego reconozcan que las violaciones como la Ley del control de armas de 1968 nunca deben ser toleradas por nadie que crea en el derecho a la legítima defensa.

El artículo original se encuentra aquí.

de Mises.org.es https://ift.tt/2zc4pYf https://ift.tt/2SrJ3Pp

de nuestro WordPress https://ift.tt/2yMh9pl Difundimos las ideas liberales, libertarias, minarquistas y anarcocapitalistas. https://ift.tt/2OaUyaD October 29, 2018 at 07:02AM

#WordPress #minarquia #liberal #liberalismo #anarcocapitalismo #minarquismo #libertarismo #libertario

0 notes

advertphoto · 4 years ago

Text

Gun Control Act Of 1968

This Legislation regulated interstate and foreign commerce in firearms, including importation, “prohibited persons”, and licensing provisions. After the assassinations of President John Kennedy, Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Gun Control Act is passed and imposes stricter licensing and regulation on the firearms industry, establishes new categories of firearms offenses, and prohibits the sale of firearms and ammunition to felons and certain other prohibited persons. It also imposes the first Federal jurisdiction over “destructive devices,” including bombs, mines, grenades and other similar devices. Congress reorganizes ATU into the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division (ATTD) and delegates to them the enforcement of the Gun Control Act. “Forget the democratic processes, the judicial system and the talent for organization that have long been the distinctive marks of the U.S. Forget, too, the affluence (vast, if still not general enough) and the fundamental respect for law by most Americans. From the nation’s beginnings, in fact and fiction, the gun has been provider and protector.” Though the 1968 law was a victory of sorts for gun-control activists, many were disappointed it didn’t include a registry of firearms or federal licensing requirements for gun owners. TIME reported, “It may take another act of horror to push really effective gun curbs through Congress.” Those dynamics the disappointment of gun-control activists, particularly after moments of tragedy, running up against the very real place of guns in American society may sound familiar.

youtube

What are the most important things the law changed?

It banned interstate shipments of firearms and ammunition to private individuals [and] sales of guns to minors, drug addicts and “mental incompetents.” This is the first time you have in law that mentally unbalanced people ought not to be able to get gun also convicted felons. It also strengthened the licensing and record-keeping requirements for gun dealers, and that was significant because gun dealers were subject to virtually no systematic scrutiny up until this time, although a 1938 federal law did establish a fee they paid to government to be a licensed dealer. It banned importation of foreign-made surplus firearms, except those The President of the NRA, who had testified before Congress about the bill had said [paraphrasing], ‘We’re not thrilled with this, but we can live with it. I think it’s reasonable.’ The fact that he would concede there’s any such thing as a reasonable gun control legislation that represented the prevailing point of view of NRA leadership at the time, from 1968 to the late 1970s. Portions of the ’68 law were modified by a law passed by Congress in 1986, the Firearms Owners Protections Act, which sought to repeal even more of the law. It didn’t succeed, but the 1986 law does repeal or modify or blunt some of the aspects of the ’68 law. [It does that] by amending the ’68 law to allow for the interstate sale of rifles and shotguns as long as it was legal in the states of the buyer and seller, eliminating certain record-keeping requirements for ammunition dealers, and making it easier for individuals selling guns to do so without a license. The 1986 federal law was the culmination of the effort to try to roll back the 1968 law. The gun issue hadn’t been politicized in the ’60s the way it has been in the last few decades, where it has become even more angry and strident; 1968 was a year of political assassinations that shocked the nation. One of the great myths is the idea that gun-control laws are an artefact of the modern era, the 20th century. Gun laws are as old as America, literally to the very early colonial beginnings of the nation. From the beginning of the late 1600s to the end of the 1800s, gun laws were everywhere, thousands of gun laws of every imaginable variety. You find virtually every state in the union enacting laws that bar people from carrying concealed weapons. That’s something people don’t realize. The GCA is the main federal law that governs the interstate commerce of firearms in the United States. Specifically, the GCA prohibits firearms commerce across state lines except between licensed manufacturers, dealers, and importers. Under the GCA, any individual or company that wants to partake in commercial activity dealing with the manufacture or importation of firearms and ammunition or the interstate and intrastate sale of firearms must possess a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Procedural jargon notwithstanding, the enactment of 1968 GCA was a watershed moment in US politics. It was the first piece of legislation that put the gun control debate on the map.

youtube

Political Context of the GCA

It should be noted that the GCA was not the first piece of gun control passed at the federal level. In 1934, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the National Firearms Act of 1934 into law. The first comprehensive gun law at the federal level, the NFA taxed and mandated registration of certain firearms such as machine guns, sawed-off rifles, and sawed-off shotguns. This law was passed under the pretext of addressing mob-style violence during Prohibition, but a careful review of the New Deal era shows how the NFA was just another piece of FDR’s unprecedented social engineering program. This NFA was followed up by the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which created a precursor to the 1968 GCA’s FFL system. Despite the government’s encroachments on gun rights, the federal government stayed away from further regulation for the next three decades. The passage of the GCA wasn’t without its fair share of opposition. Groups like the National Rifle Association, which traditionally focused on conservation and outdoor niches, were compelled to take nominally pro-gun stances. However, the NRA wasn’t alone. Groups like Gun Owners of America came into the spotlight, positioning themselves as a “no compromise” alternative to NRA. By the early 1980s, pro-gun lobbies would become pivotal actors in the never-ending circus of DC politics.

deas are Still Key

As the days go by, gun rights appear to be gradually falling down the path of statist micromanagement. But there’s something more fundamental to this trend than the cliché aphorism of eternal vigilance and conventional strategies of political activism. It really comes down to the battle of ideas. The GCA is a child of the New Deal and Great Society mindset that views the government as an omnipotent administrator of human affairs. A paradigm shift in ideas is needed to break free from this top-down vision of society. Until then, gun lobbies face an uphill battle. A solid first step is for gun owners to recognize that infringements like the GCA of 1968 must never be tolerated by anyone who believes in the right to self-defense. After three decades of quiescence in the arena of gun control politics, the turmoil of the 1960s unleashed a wave of demand for new gun control legislation. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas on November 22, 1963, prompted the country to focus on the regulation of firearms. Then the urban riots beginning in 1964 and the 1968 assassinations of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. and Senator Robert F. Kennedy fueled an inferno of outrage that demanded congressional action. In the wake of these acts of violence the U.S. Congress enacted the Gun Control Act which President Lyndon B. Johnson signed in 1968. Although the Gun Control Act did not contain the owner licensing and gun registration provisions that President Johnson desired, the act, along with the Safe Streets and Crime Control Act passed by Congress months earlier, contained the most significant restrictions on firearms since Congress enacted the National Firearms Act (NFA) in 1934.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION IN THE 1960s

A highly controversial bill that precipitated emotional debate and ferocious political battles, the Gun Control Act travelled quite a convoluted path prior to its ultimate approval by Congress. It started down its torturous road in 1963 when Senator Thomas J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, championed legislation geared specifically at tightening restrictions on the sale of mail-order handguns. After President Kennedy was murdered with a military-style rifle obtained through the mail, Senator Dodd extended the reach of the legislation to include “long guns,” including rifles and shotguns. The legislation met an early demise when it was held up in the Commerce Committee and not allowed out for a vote on the Senate floor. Interestingly, the National Rifle Association (NRA) leaders initially supported the measures and even engaged in drafting Dodd’s bill. Yet the NRA leadership did not wish to alienate its more radical rank and file, so they neglected to divulge this to their members. Instead, in a letter to each of its affiliates, the NRA claimed its executive vice-president testified against the bill and prevented it from being voted out of Committee.

youtube

The NRA publication The Rifleman criticized the bill as a product of “irrational emotionalism,” and the first four issues of The Rifleman in 1964 dedicated more than thirty columns to firearms legislation, never telling its members of the NRA leadership’s support of the bill. These publications provoked the grass roots members to send off a great number of angry letters opposing the bill to Congress. In 1965 President Johnson aggressively endorsed the cause of fighting crime and regulating firearms by spearheading a new, strict gun control measure that Dodd introduced in the Senate. But the Johnson administration’s proposal suffered a string of defeats over the next three years because of heavy pressure from the NRA, key congressional leaders who supported them, the American Legion, and gun importers, manufacturers, and dealers. Adding to the administration’s difficulties was the lack of an organized pro–gun control lobby to check the relentless onslaughts against the legislation by the NRA. In 1968 President Johnson and his administration intensified their efforts. Johnson began using the bully pulpit of the presidency to chide Congress publicly to enact his gun control policy. In his 1968 State of the Union address, Johnson exhorted Congress to pass a gun control law that would stop “mail order murder.” And months later, President Johnson conveyed to Congress, in no uncertain terms, his desire for crime legislation that required national registration of every gun in America and licenses for all gun owners. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate responded to the president’s admonishment in short order. Congressional representatives carefully, and often vociferously, argued about the provisions of the president’s crime legislation. The measure, titled the Safe Streets and Crime Control Bill, received stiff resistance from gun control opponents.

NRA OPPOSITION TO THE ACT

By 1968 the leadership of the NRA was fully against any and all gun regulations. The group undertook a mass-mailing lobbying effort to undermine the legislation. Their organized lobbying efforts proved successful in wiping out much of the support for gun licensing and registration restrictions. Congress eventually enacted the Safe Streets and Crime Control Act, a watered-down version of the Johnson administration’s anticrime and gun control proposal. The act prohibited the interstate shipment of pistols and revolvers to individuals, but it specifically exempted rifles and shotguns from any regulations. With the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy on June 5, 1968, the groundswell of support for tough gun control laws reached unprecedented levels. On June 6, the day after the Kennedy assassination, Johnson signed the Safe Streets and Crime Control Act, but lamented the law’s weak provisions. President Johnson, who had proposed gun control measures every year since becoming president, appeared on national television imploring Congress to pass a new and tougher gun control law that banned mail-order and out-of-state sales of long guns and ammunition. Reading a letter he sent to Congress, Johnson pleaded to Congress “in the name of sanity… in the name of safety and in the name of an aroused nation to give America the gun-control law it needs.” On June 24, President Johnson again addressed the country, calling for mandatory national gun registration and licenses for every gun owner. Around this time, polls showed that approximately 80 percent of Americans favoured gun registration laws. The public flooded members of Congress with letters demanding greater regulation of guns. Protestors picketed the Washington headquarters of the NRA. Even many members of Congress who had been staunch adversaries of strict firearms regulation crossed over to the other side and rallied in favour of a tough gun control bill.

ORGANIZED GUN CONTROL EFFORTS

Pro–gun control advocates mobilized and constructed an effective pro–gun control pressure group called the Emergency Committee for Gun Control. The bipartisan organization was headed by Colonel John H. Glenn, Jr., a former astronaut and friend of Senator Robert Kennedy. The Committee, comprising volunteer staffers who had worked for Senator Kennedy before he was assassinated, received extensive support from a variety of organizations such as the American Bankers Association, the AFL-CIO, the Conference of Mayors, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Association of Attorneys General, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Riding a wave of support, the Committee sought to counteract the highly organized and resource-laden NRA. Their efforts proved somewhat effective, but ultimately fell short of the group’s goal of a comprehensive scheme of gun registration and gun owner licensing. Facing this unprecedented, widespread push for gun control, the NRA became highly energized and rallied against the president’s proposed regulations. National Rifle Association executive vice-president Franklin L. Orth argued publicly that no law, existing or proposed, could have prevented the murder of Senator Kennedy. On June 15, 1968, the NRA mailed a letter to its members calling for them to write their members of Congress to oppose any new firearms laws. Using hyperbole and emotionally charged rhetoric, NRA President Harold W. Glassen wrote that the right of sportsmen to obtain, own, and use firearms for a legal purpose was in grave jeopardy. Furthermore, Glassen wrote, the clear goal of gun control proponents was complete abolition of civilian ownership of guns. Senator Joseph D. Tydings, Democrat of Maryland, who had introduced the provisions requiring licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms, responded to this accusation in a press conference calling the letter “calculated hysteria” and saying no bill would prevent law-abiding citizens from having guns. Nevertheless, Glassen’s tactic effectively energized the membership of the NRA, then 900,000 strong, just as the public outcry calling for more firearms regulations was dissipating. Whereas Congress had encountered overwhelming support for more gun control measures in the week after Senator Kennedy’s death, by late June and early July they reported the majority of the letters from constituents indicated opposition to any new gun control provisions. The battle over the president’s proposals continued in the halls of Congress in typical fashion, featuring emotionally charged debates and supporters split along specific demographic and ideological lines. In the House, opponents argued against a registration provision claiming it would be costly and ineffective in preventing crime. In the Senate, Dodd attacked the NRA, decrying its tactics of “blackmail, intimidation and unscrupulous propaganda.” The licensing and registration provisions, backed solidly by northern liberals, were easily defeated in both the House of Representatives and Senate by a conservative coalition of Republicans and southern Democrats. However, the provisions banning mail-order and out-of-state sales of long guns and ammunition fared better, passing both the House and Senate. Eastern and Midwestern members of Congress overwhelmingly supported these measures, while those from the South and West were much less supportive. Members of Congress representing urban areas staunchly supported the bill, whereas those from rural sections of the country voted against it in significant numbers.

PROVISIONS OF THE GUN CONTROL ACT

On October 22, President Johnson signed into law the Gun Control Act of 1968—an instrument which, just months earlier, was considered a lost cause because of staunch opposition. The signing of the legislation represented a significant political win for the president, Senator Dodd, and other gun control advocates who had struggled for years to pass a gun control bill that would effect real change. Enacted pursuant to the Congress’s constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce, the legislation had three major features. First, it prohibited interstate traffic in firearms and ammunition. Second, it denied guns to specific classes of individuals such as felons, minors, fugitives, drug addicts, and the mentally ill. Third, it prohibited the importation of surplus military weapons into the United States as well as guns and ammunition not federally certified as sporting weapons or souvenirs. As is usually the case in American politics, the statute did not signify a complete victory for either side. Advocates of gun control failed to get provisions requiring owner licensing and firearms registration, yet gun control opponents, typically NRA members, suffered another setback to their goal of removing governmental regulation of firearms. This partial defeat for the NRA served as the group’s wake-up call, energizing and expanding the membership of the NRA who suddenly felt politically vulnerable. Yet unlike the NRA, the pro–gun control advocates were not organized for long-term pressure politics, and their political influence began to wane. Thus in 1986 the NRA successfully weakened the provisions of the 1968 act by spearheading the passage of the Firearms Owners Protection Act.

Utah Gun Lawyer Free Consultation

When you need legal help from a Gun Attorney in Utah, please call Ascent Law LLC for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews