Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Posted: 12/1/2001 6:52:33 PM EST
I am overwhelmed with information and don't have but one close friend who understands the whole "gun thing" well, and he's not available right now so I am using you all as a resource. Please don't let me down. I need some way of tying together FDR and Gun Control other than saying "He was for big government by creating his alphabet agencies". I also can't seem to get my head clear to detail how the NFA of 38 was a gateway act for other gun laws. I Mean beyond 68. 68 is easy to justify with MLK,JFK and RFK. I need to make this prof understand how much the 2nd is being trampled by these laws. Can you please please please help?? I'm usually an intelligent woman but my brain is just fried now.. hours of pouring over the atf website and the Encyclopedia of Gun Control and Gun Rights has caused my eyes to popout of my skull. I'll be showering while you guys are thinking.
Link Posted: 12/1/2001 6:56:37 PM EST
hrm, that's an interesting topic. Maybe try www.keepandbeararms.com -- hrm. Basically, I'd make the argument that the NFA was the first law regulating private ownership of weapons (heck, people can still own black-powder cannons), and it was implemented as a tax because it was assumed that any outright restrictions would be obviously unconstitutional. Also, the miller decision is right around then -- and that's been heavily misinterpreted, as the judges in the emerson decision laid out.
Link Posted: 12/1/2001 6:58:18 PM EST
There is the emerson opinion from october of this year that the court finally acknowledges that the second ammendment applies to personal ownership of all firearms. search for it it was discussed in detail here about one month ago. john
Link Posted: 12/1/2001 7:02:29 PM EST
...Shower?? [shock] [sex] It's good to be home. [):)] NSF
Link Posted: 12/1/2001 7:03:53 PM EST
Please don't chide if I am mistaken. 101_Proof would kick my butt if I am making a fool of him by misunderstanding all the things that he has tried to hard to teach me, but I was thought that the supreme court ruled against miller in that the 2nd doesn't protect the posession of a sawed off shotgun because it has no relation to the preservation of a well regulated militia.
Link Posted: 12/1/2001 7:17:54 PM EST
That is correct. The Supreme Court came to that decision, because Miller was unable to speak on his behalf (he "disappered". How convenent for the gov)). They came to the misguided conclusion that a rifle that is under 16 inches had no value to the "militia" or military. Little did THEY know that sawed off shotguns were used as trench guns in WW 1. They were easier to use in the narrow trenches when they were attacked. Now, the same applies to full auto weapons. Almost all of the full auto weapons that the military used at the time were crew served, thefore an INDIVIDUAL could not reasonably own one, since the belief was that the Second applied to weapons that were used by individual soldiers. BUT if yo uapplied that thought process to weapons today, we should all be able to own M-16's, since it is the standard firearm for the military. [smoke]
Link Posted: 12/1/2001 8:04:43 PM EST
Take a look at [url]www.guncite.com[/url].
Link Posted: 12/1/2001 8:19:10 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/1/2001 8:23:39 PM EST by Alacrity]
The arguments surrounding pending legislation in the first quarter of the 20th century are astounding. For example, the regulation of drugs, specifically patent medicine, focused on it being unconstitutional as Congress had no specific authority (constitutional) to regulate the use of drugs or to prohibit oneself from exercising control over ones body. But then the loophole. Congress has the power to tax. So drugs were regulated by tax (tax stamp- sound familiar?) FDA was created and the rest is a slippery slope. This is how the regulatory bureaucracy was established. ATF, FDA, FAA, FCC, EPA - all the three letter agencies are legacies of FDR. The regulations regarding firearms are all tied to taxation - least they were. At the time, they hung their hat on the power granted to congress to tax. If not, Congress would have no authority. Now even that spurious claim to authority is blatantly ignored. If you only have the power to regulate by taxation HOW do you ban manufacture of class III weapons? Ive never gotten nor was able to formulate a suitable answer. FDR may have utilized the system, but the tools had been made available earlier in the century. Can you imagine your current Congressman examining the Constitution to determine the authority to pass a particular law? Remember there has never been an adjudication linking the 2nd to the 14th so it would still apply solely to Federal and not State Law. Check Kopel or Halbrook under Google, Ill bet one of them dealt with this (William and Mary seems to have some good resources on RKBA Ive just been introduced to lately) Luck Alac "AS civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear arms". (Tench Coxe in "Remarks On The First Part Of The Amendments to The Federal Constitution". Under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian", in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 8, 1789, at 2 col. 1.) The most important man you've never heard of.
Link Posted: 12/1/2001 10:02:29 PM EST
here is the link to the emerson opinion by the us district court http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-10331-cr0.htm john
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 5:34:02 AM EST
Greenfrog: My above post doesnt address dirtectly FDR's connection, it a little less tangible than he pushed through NFA38. It was only one of a number of issue that should have gotten extremely close SCOTUS scrutiny, but did not. The answer lies in the relationship between FDR and the High Court. Should be plenty of info on that topic without my wasting bandwidth here. If you need sources, post and Ill do some digging. Off to breakfast at present. Luck Alac
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 3:43:30 PM EST
Thank you Alac. Your info was helpful. I am just overwhelmed. SUrely you understand. Anyway, I did want to tell you that the ATF wasn't established until 1972 so the Treas Dept was FDR's downfall when it came to guns. I wonder did he have some concern for his "big government"? What would he think now? After waco and Ruby Ridge and all. Gotta run.
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 4:10:34 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/2/2001 4:12:00 PM EST by USNvet]
greenfrog, keep in mind that the 1934 NFA followed the Roaring 20's, Prohibition, and all the gangster shootouts. FDR just took advantage of all the carnage from that era the same as present day libs did with Columbine. And I'll add that the NFA Act was ruled unconstitutional by the appeals court in the Miller case before the supremes got hold of it, with no one showing up to represent the defense, since Miller was dead. What ties the 1934 NFA to the 1968 GCA and beyond is probably as has already been stated; the Miller case has been misread so much to the point that government actually thought the 2nd was not a personal right, and therefore, it was okay to pile on.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 7:54:28 AM EST
Aye Greenfrog, didnt mean to imply ATF was directly created by FDR. He did create its antecedent the FAA (Federal Alcohol Administration). Just that the above mentioned precedents allowed for the system that exists today. FDR and Congress capitalized on the environment of the depression, as USNvet stated, to construct government programs that years earlier would have been ruled patently unconstitutional. Theres evidence that FDR had some undue influence over the Court, but I cant cite anything off hand. In any event it was a terrible time and the Court was not about to invalidate programs that were seen as salvation. Check the abstracts surrounding the WPA, should be some good information there, and the Congressional arguments surrounding the Pure Food and Drug Act. The time period is 1905-1907, was adopted in 1906, took effect in '07. Roosevelt (Teddy) signed it. The Harrison Act (1914)followed and the control of narcotics went from uncontrolled to controlled by taxation to the current situation where all manner of drugs a regulated by the FDA. I am not proposing that deregulation would be a good thing. My point is, every single government body follows this trend. At first, Congress utilizes its only claim to constitutional authority, taxation, to regulate an issue. Then they expand their authority based on previous legislation until there is very little Constitutional authority for their actions. Mind you, I'm a strict constructionist. Ask this question. How did NFA38 progress to the point were at present. Its not that the Second Admendment is being infringed, its that a whole cross section of Congressional actions derive their authority NOT from Constitutional power, but from the common belief that Conress is empowered to do nearly anything as long as it does not violate the Bill of Rights. Congress does not rightfully have this carte blanche authority, and until the first quarter of this century this was the common understanding of those in government and the public. I dont think you can make a direct causal case for FDR as the father of gun control. But the precedents for governmental controls in these areas, not solely legal but common acceptence as well, were put firmly in place by the "New Deal". Which themselves derived from the earlier regulating taxations I mentioned above. NFA38 was similar. Id argue that GCA68 cant that easily be justified. It could very well capitalize on the feelings of the public at the time, but it was and is very difficult to justify based on Constitutional authority. Congressional authority for GCA68 was not as critically argued as an authority issue since it was an outgrowth of NFA38. Prior to the 30's the federal governments role and powers were extremely limited. Its amazing how little regulation there was. Check out some of the turn of the century politcal arguement surrounding the adoption of the PFDA06 and its hard to beleive we live in the same country. They had no idea the expansion of governmental powers would be so complete nor so uncritically accepted. Hope this might help, Im working from memory so I cant give you any citations. But based on what I and others have stated maybe you can focus a bit. I'd shy away from attempting to make the Prof "understand". Just construct a solid argument, even if he doenst "understand" he cant dock you for a good paper. Luck Alac
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 1:36:55 PM EST
Alacrity, a minor point, but you said "ATF, FDA, FAA, FCC, EPA - all the three letter agencies are legacies of FDR." While this maybe correct by reasonable extension of your argument, I know that the EPA, i.e., the Environmental Protection Agency, was not created by FDR. As I recall, it was created in the 60's or early 70's, long after FDR was dead. All in all, I like your arguments.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 2:26:46 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/3/2001 2:21:49 PM EST by Alacrity]
Anyway, I did want to tell you that the ATF wasn't established until 1972 so the Treas Dept was FDR's downfall when it came to guns.
View Quote
Alacrity, a minor point, but you said "ATF, FDA, FAA, FCC, EPA - all the three letter agencies are legacies of FDR." While this maybe correct by reasonable extension of your argument, I know that the EPA, i.e., the Environmental Protection Agency, was not created by FDR. As I recall, it was created in the 60's or early 70's, long after FDR was dead.
View Quote
In retrospect quite ambiguous. My apoligies. As Greenfrog posted also, some of those 3 letters were not a direct result of FDR. I meant legacy in the broadest possible sense - not that he created them but that they were created as a result of a shift in perception, mostly of the public, but those in government as well. There was a paradigm shift in what was deemed allowable to Congress and the Government in general. FDR was not solely or even perhaps chiefly responsible for this, but he certainly shoulders a larger portion of the blame then any other body I can think of. He also created the precursors for some of these agencies, as I noted above, though offhand I cant say EPA was one of them. EPA isnt my area of interest [;)] Hardcase, keep me honest mate, we are all better for it. Especially me. Luck Alac Edited to play with icons
Top Top