Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/18/2004 3:54:23 PM EST
Many of the controls proposed in 1934 might well have hindered the availability of the more powerful firearms found on American streets today. Discussions included the need to regulate high-capacity ammunition magazines and bulletproof vests. The committee considered, and abandoned, machine gun definitions that would have had a tremendous impact on today's firearms violence. Under the National Firearms Act, a machine gun is defined as "any weapon which shoots ... automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." The committee had weighed other, more restrictive, definitions that would have capped civilian firepower. One would have classified "any weapon designed to shoot automatically or semiautomatically twelve or more shots without reloading" as a machine gun. A second would have classified as a machine gun "any weapon which shoots ... automatically or semiautomatically, more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." The first definition would have limited the public to weapons capable of holding only twelve rounds or less, the second would have limited it to single-shot weapons.



Link Posted: 10/18/2004 3:58:13 PM EST
I never knew politicians had proposed a magazine capacity ban back in 1934.

Link Posted: 10/18/2004 4:00:30 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 4:03:09 PM EST
Well under the 12 round max defintion 3 round burst would be legal but you would only get 4 of them.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 4:04:50 PM EST
Didn't the M50 Reising have 12 or 20rnd mags? Just make sure to only use the 12rnders.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 4:08:17 PM EST
But was it originally designed for use with 12 round mags?

If so, it would be legal I guess (BATFE didn't show up until early 1970's).

Under the def it would have to designed to shoot 12 or less shots.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 6:58:37 PM EST
IIRC, handguns were going to be considered Title II firearms.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 7:07:53 PM EST
Shit...guess we lucked out on that one, eh???
Top Top