Search found 7 matches

by bblhd672
Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:08 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Trump: Banning Suppressors?
Replies: 115
Views: 8698

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

DevilDawg wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:26 pm
To bring this back on the topic of POTUS vs Suppressors, here is a link to the petition to stop his advance against them.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti ... uppressors
Signed
by bblhd672
Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:02 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Trump: Banning Suppressors?
Replies: 115
Views: 8698

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:36 pm
bblhd672 wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 2:09 pm

As you said, there’s only one reason suppressors are considered “unusual” in the United States, the 1934 NFA. Which was supported by the NRA.
What do you mean the NRA supported the NFA?

Chas.
I’m repeating what was printed on pages 22 and 23 of NRA’s American Rifleman magazine, March 1968 edition.
BEGIN TEXT OF PAGES 22 AND 23 OF NRA’S
AMERICAN RIFLEMAN MAGAZINE, MARCH 1968 EDITION
###
WHERE THE NRA STANDS ON GUN LEGISLATION
97-year record shows positive approach to workable gun laws
By ALAN C. WEBBER
Associate Editor
THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN
"I think it is a terrible indictment of the National Rifle Association that they haven’t supported any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country."
That flat assertion was made by Senator Robert Kennedy (N.Y.), Jan. 16 in addressing the New York State University law school in Buffalo.
Terming Kennedy’s accusation "a smear of a great American organization," NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth pointed out that "The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."
A few days later, Orth seconded the request of President Lyndon Johnson, made Jan. 17 in his State of the Union message, for a curb on mail-order sales.
"The duty of Congress is clear," Orth said, "it should act now to pass legislation that will keep undesirables,including criminals, drug addicts and persons adjudged mentally irresponsible or alcoholic, or juveniles from obtaining firearms through the mails."
The NRA position, as stated by Orth, emphasizes that the NRA has consistently supported gun legislation which it feels would penalize misuse of guns without harassing law-abiding hunters, target shooters and collectors.
Here is the record over the years:
Item: The late Karl T. Frederick, an NRA president, served for years as special consultant with the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to frame The Uniform Firearms Act of 1930.
Adopted by Alabama, Indiana, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Washington, the Act directly attacks the "mail order murder" to which President Johnson referred in his State of the Union Message. It specifically forbids delivery of pistols to convicts, drug addicts, habitual drunkards, incompetents, and minors under the age of 18. Other salient provisions of the Act require a license to carry a pistol concealed on one’s person or in a vehicle; require the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to local police authorities; specify a 48-hour time lapse between application for purchase and delivery.
Item: The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns.
Item: The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition, and prohibits the movement in interstate or foreign commerce of firearms and ammunition between certain persons and under certain conditions.

More recently, the spate of articles on gun legislation has spread the erroneous impression that the NRA has always opposed Senator Thomas J. Dodd’s attempts to keep guns out of the hands of juveniles. This is simply untrue. The facts are these:
The NRA worked closely with the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, of which Senator Dodd was chairman, in its investigation into the relationship between juvenile crime and the availability of firearms.
The NRA supported the original "Dodd Bill" to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun.
In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns.

The parting of the ways came only when Senator Dodd introduced still another bill (S.1592) in March, 1965, which drastically intensified his earlier bills. The NRA opposed S.1592 and subsequent bills introduced by the Connecticut Senator. If passed into law, S.1592 would, among other things, have ended all interstate shipments of firearms except to persons holding a Federal firearms license. It also would have prohibited even a Federal licensee from selling a pistol to anyone residing in another State.
NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts. The essential provisions which the NRA supports are contained in 2 Senate bills introduced by Senator Roman L. Hruska (Nebr.) and House bills introduced by Congressmen Cecil R. King (17th fist.-Calif.) and Robert L. F. Sikes (1st Dist.Fla.). These bills would:
1. Impose a mandatory penalty for the carrying or use of a firearm, transported in interstate or foreign commerce, during the commission of certain crimes.
2. Place "destructive devices" (bombs, mines, grenades, crew-served military ordnance) under Federal regulation.
3. Prohibit any licensed manufacturer or dealer from shipping any firearm to any person in any State in violation of the laws of that state.
4. Regulate the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
A. requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the
CONTINUED ON PAGE 23 (text below)
THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN
(March 1968)
purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;
B. providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;
C. requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;
D. prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;
E. providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce;
F. increasing penalties for violation.
Through bulletins to its members, the NRA has often voiced approval and support of State and local ordinances designed to keep firearms out of the hands of undesirables. A bulletin of Feb. 20, 1964 notified Virginia members of the introduction in the Virginia House of Delegates of a bill requiring a 72-hour waiting period for purchase of a handgun. In the bulletin, which outlined the provisions of the bill, NRA Secretary Frank C. Daniel commented as follows:
"A number of States and local jurisdictions have a waiting period of varying length for the purchase of a concealable firearm; and, where intelligently and reasonably administered, it has not proved to be an undue burden on the shooter and sportsman. … The bill from a technical point of view adequately protects citizens of good character from any arbitrary denial of their right to purchase a handgun. It should be judged on the basis of whether or not a waiting period for the purchase of a handgun is desirable for the State."
The bill was killed in the House Feb. 25, 1964.
When bills were introduced in the Illinois legislature in February, 1965, to provide mandatory penalties for crimes committed while armed with a firearm, the NRA expressed its opinion to Illinois members in these terms:
NRA Secretary Daniel
"The purpose of these bills is to penalize the criminal misuse of firearms and weapons, and not the firearms themselves. This is a sound and reasonable basis for regulation and is aimed in the right direction--that of criminal conduct when armed. Senate Bill No. 351 and House Bill No. 472 are worthy of the support of the sports-men of the State of Illinois."
The bills were passed by the Senate and House but were vetoed by Gov. Otto Kerner a few months later.
Many other instances of NRA support for worthwhile gun legislation could be quoted. But these suffice to show that Senator Kennedy’s "terrible indictment" of the NRA is groundless.
###
END TEXT OF PAGES 22 AND 23 OF NRA’S
AMERICAN RIFLEMAN MAGAZINE, MARCH 1968 EDITION
by bblhd672
Mon Jun 10, 2019 2:09 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Trump: Banning Suppressors?
Replies: 115
Views: 8698

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

G.A. Heath wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:59 pm
While I do not agree with the Trump administration I do see what I believe is their logic:
The truth of the matter is that Silencers, like machine guns, are relatively unusual in regards to the general public due to the NFA. Since they are unusual they do not qualify for protection under Heller as it currently stands.

Now for my thoughts:
As for regulating them out of existence, like they did with bump stocks, it might become a bit more difficult. Consider that the same law that makes them so unusual regulates them so strictly that it will likely protect them from regulatory fiat. As a result it would likely require an act of congress and the signature of the president to eliminate them.

The NRA and NSSF have invested in advancing 'silencer rights' so they have a vested interest in protecting the progress they made and any future progress they hope to make. While we are here talking, chatting, and demanding the NRA make some public statement I suspect they are busy working to educate the president, his staff, and everyone who will listen in congress about why suppressors need to be protected. While I suspect they are doing that other groups are out there going King Kong thumping their chests and shouting "Trump Bad, Suppressor Good. Frum Mah cold ded hans." and sending out chain emails saying "Trump is gonna ban suppressors!!! Donate money to us now to stop him. Don't let Trump take away the suppressors because only we can stop it."

There is a reason the anti gunners, socialists, liberals, and so on (I know I repeated myself) constantly bash the NRA while they ignore nearly everyone else and it's probably because they are the most effective and don't telegraph their intentions in the media.
Lol...your description of the fund raising email sounds exactly like the NRA’s constant alarmist fund raising mail and email the organization sends out.

As you said, there’s only one reason suppressors are considered “unusual” in the United States, the 1934 NFA. Which was supported by the NRA.
by bblhd672
Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:17 am
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Trump: Banning Suppressors?
Replies: 115
Views: 8698

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

If Democrats take the Senate, retain the House and win the Presidency in 2020, all bets are off. Don’t expect a majority Democrat Senate to be bound by silly outdated “rules” requiring 60 votes to get legislation passed restricting anything the progressive socialists want.
There’s 590 days until next president takes office, either Trump or a Democrat. Prepare accordingly.
by bblhd672
Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:53 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Trump: Banning Suppressors?
Replies: 115
Views: 8698

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

carlson1 wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:36 pm
The government is no longer of the people for the people. I don’t think we should have to pick any mountain to die on, but I am just an uneducated Baptist preacher.
Amen, preach it brother!
by bblhd672
Wed Jun 05, 2019 7:57 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Trump: Banning Suppressors?
Replies: 115
Views: 8698

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

jason812 wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:39 pm
Bump stocks were not a sword to die on, are suppressors?
Probably not to certain organizations that purports to be about protecting the right to keep and bear arms.
by bblhd672
Wed Jun 05, 2019 1:28 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Trump: Banning Suppressors?
Replies: 115
Views: 8698

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

Redneck_Buddha wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 1:13 pm
One thing people have never been able to wrap their brains around on either side is that Trump really is not terribly conservative.
Trump’s best attribute these days is “better than Hillary”.

Return to “Trump: Banning Suppressors?”