Do you think the antis will propose that?

CRC

They can try but I'll not play their game.

Quoted: They can try but I'll not play their game.

I like you Frank.

LOL, I'm glad that someone likes me.
The truth of the matter is that the government can pass all the laws that it want's to, if no one want's to play along then what good are the laws except to take up space in some book somewhere. Proibition didn't work because no one played along with it, in fact, more people played the game of "let's have a drink and ignore the law" to the point of making the law do more damage then good.  We don't have to kill people and start a civil war to get our point across, all we have to do is ignore the law and sooner or later it'll go away without a shot being fired.

The time for kid gloves around the Second Amendment is over.

EVERY time these oxygen thieves bring up another "reasonable restriction" it's time to pound the snot out of it.  We've "compromised" enough of our RIGHTS away and ANY legitimate study out there shows that it does nothing, or in some cases actually causes more crime (the "resaonble justification" for almost all the proposals the anti's put forth).

My stand.  I'm a law-abiding citizen.  When you chose to usurp one of my Constitutionally guaranteed RIGHTS in reaction to what I MIGHT do, that's "thought crime" as far as I'm concerned.

Let's see how you like it if I tell you I want to "reasonably restrict" your First Amendment RIGHTS because of something you MIGHT say.

Doesn't seem so "reasonable" now, does it?

IIRC,  the authors of the NFA had originaly wanted to include handguns in the legislation (my recollection is a little hazy, but I think that magazine capacity was another issue brought up during committe hearings for the bill).

Quoted: IIRC,  the authors of the NFA had originaly wanted to include handguns in the legislation (my recollection is a little hazy, but I think that magazine capacity was another issue brought up during committe hearings for the bill).

Damn, you must be one of the oldest members on the board.  What was your source for information back then about the legislation that became the National Firearms Act of 1934?

Quoted: The time for kid gloves around the Second Amendment is over. EVERY time these oxygen thieves bring up another "reasonable restriction" it's time to pound the snot out of it.  We've "compromised" enough of our RIGHTS away and ANY legitimate study out there shows that it does nothing, or in some cases actually causes more crime (the "resaonble justification" for almost all the proposals the anti's put forth). My stand.  I'm a law-abiding citizen.  When you chose to usurp one of my Constitutionally guaranteed RIGHTS in reaction to what I MIGHT do, that's "thought crime" as far as I'm concerned. Let's see how you like it if I tell you I want to "reasonably restrict" your First Amendment RIGHTS because of something you MIGHT say. Doesn't seem so "reasonable" now, does it?

Amen Brother Airwolf, preach it son.  That just about sums up how I feel on the matter as well. If I'm minding my own business, shooting my semi-autos and having fun and hurting no one and all of a sudden the government passes a law that makes me a "criminal" because I own a certain type of firearm then their law is bullshit, plain and simple and should be ignored by every red blooded American that values their Rights and Freedoms.

Quoted: Quoted: IIRC,  the authors of the NFA had originaly wanted to include handguns in the legislation (my recollection is a little hazy, but I think that magazine capacity was another issue brought up during committe hearings for the bill). Damn, you must be one of the oldest members on the board. Nahh,  I just have too much free time on my hands. What was your source for information back then about the legislation that became the National Firearms Act of 1934?

Here's one...

"But the principal booster for a federal role in firearms control was Roosevelt’s first Attorney General, Homer Cummings. It was his justice Department that was the moving force behind the National Firearms Act of 1934,[28] and that attached a provision for federal registration of all handguns to the "anti-machine gun" measure sent to Congress in 1934.[29] When the handgun registration segment of the bill was deleted in the House, the justice Department continued to introduce handgun registration proposals, and to fight for them throughout the 1930s, long after crime control had lost its place in the hierarchy of New Deal legislative goals.

The firearms control campaign of the 1930s resulted in two pieces of federal legislation: the National Firearms Act of 1934,[30] and the Federal Firearms Act of 1938.[31] Neither law reflected the scope of Attorney General Cummings’ ambitions, but the two acts established a role for the federal government in firearms control, and these laws were the immediate precursors of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

The National Firearms Act of 1934, after the handgun registration provisions were deleted, was a concentrated attack on civilian ownership of machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, silencers, and other relatively rare firearms that had acquired reputations as gangster weapons during the years preceding its passage.

www.saf.org/LawReviews/Zimring68.htm

The VPC is aware of it.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/cflaw.htm

" The first law passed regulating the possession of firearms was the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), which was enacted following the wave of violence that accompanied Prohibition to control access to "gangster weapons," such as fully automatic firearms, sawed-off shotguns and silencers. The NFA requires anyone purchasing one of the regulated weapons to undergo an extensive application process that includes a background check and a waiting period of four to six months. Early versions of the bill proposed including handguns under the comprehensive licensing structures of the NFA, but that provision was eventually dropped from the bill at the NRA's urging."

I used to have a very long, detailed .txt file consisting of the hearings and testimony for the NFA (I'll try to find it).

Things weren't all that much different back then.. same gun-grabbing circus, different clowns.

Quoted: Do you think the antis will propose that? CRC

The NFA was originally to cover all firearms except long-barreled rifles & shotguns.

It didn't fly...

While this is theoretically possible (Feinstein tried to make 50BMG rifles DDs earlier this year, it went nowhere), the current administration & congress won't allow it...

Another reason to vote for the GOP, NOT some whackjob 3rd party...

Quoted: I used to have a very long, detailed .txt file consisting of the hearings and testimony for the NFA (I'll try to find it). Things weren't all that much different back then.. same gun-grabbing circus, different clowns.

I think this is what you're looking for.

Quoted: Quoted: I used to have a very long, detailed .txt file consisting of the hearings and testimony for the NFA (I'll try to find it). Things weren't all that much different back then.. same gun-grabbing circus, different clowns. I think this is what you're looking for.

Thanks, that's it.

I thought there were some allusions to mag capacity.

 The first criticism that I have to make is on page 1, lines 8 to 10. The definition of the term "machine gun" I think is wholly inadequate and unsatisfactory. A gun which fires automatically or semiautomatically less than 12 shots is not under this definition a machine gun. And yet, in my opinion, it is in fact a machine gun and should be so classified.

The well known Thompson submachine gun which has figured in the papers extensively; the so-called "Browning" automatic rifle or the Monitor rifle, which is a somewhat similar weapon designed for police use, are both in fact capable of being operated automatically and semiautomatically. The number of shots which they may discharge is dependent solely on the size or the content of the magazine and if you use those guns with magazines holding only 11 shots they would not be, within the terms of this bill, a machine gun.

Mr. WOODRUFF. Will you yield for a question there?

Mr. FREDERICK. Certainly.

Mr. WOODRUFF. As a matter of fact, the only thing that controls or limits the number of shots that an automatic rifle or shotgun can fire is the magazine itself, is it not?


Mr. FREDERICK. I think that is correct.

Mr. WOODRUFF. That is the only way in which you can limit the number of shots that can be fired. And it is a very simple matter, is it not, to change the magazine or the clip or whatever they use to hold these cartridges, to meet any restrictions, particularly restrictions such as are proposed in the paragraph at the bottom of the first page of this bill?

Mr. FREDERICK. In general, that is true. I propose, however, to suggest a definition of machine gun which I think obviates your objection.

Mr. WOODRUFF. I will say that my position is exactly the same as the gentleman's in regard to this paragraph. I am in perfect harmony with you on this.

Mr. FREDERICK. And which I venture to suggest will lay before you a more concrete definition of what is a machine gun.

Mr. FREAR. Will you please give it? That is what we trying to get.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question before the witness proceeds to do that?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cooper.

Mr. COOPER. The guns to which you have referred, how many of those are now manufactured with the type of magazine mentioned by you, firing less than 12 shots?

Mr. FREDERICK. I cannot answer your question, I do not know. But I say that it would be a perfectly simple thing for smaller magazines to be prepared.