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