Page 7 of 8

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:35 pm
by Bitter Clinger
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. :tiphat:

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:07 pm
by jason812
Bitter Clinger wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:35 pm
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. :tiphat:
Me too :fire

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:08 pm
by bblhd672
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

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:35 pm
by Charles L. Cotton
bblhd672 wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:02 pm
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
I should apologize for setting you up on this one. LOL. The NRA did support the NFA of 1934, as people have noted. However, you never see anyone tell the hole story about the NRA's support. (Most people don't know this because it's never included in the attacks on the NRA.) The original version of the NFA was going to include handguns, all handguns! The NRA was hardly politically active in 1934, or 1968 for that matter. However, the NRA did prevail on Congress not to include handguns in the NFA. Too bad that part of the story is never told.

The weak position espoused by Orth is what culminated in the "Revolt at Cincinnati" in 1977. This in turn led to the creation of ILA which made the NRA the political powerhouse it is now.

Chas.

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:21 am
by K.Mooneyham
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:35 pm
bblhd672 wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:02 pm
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
I should apologize for setting you up on this one. LOL. The NRA did support the NFA of 1934, as people have noted. However, you never see anyone tell the hole story about the NRA's support. (Most people don't know this because it's never included in the attacks on the NRA.) The original version of the NFA was going to include handguns, all handguns! The NRA was hardly politically active in 1934, or 1968 for that matter. However, the NRA did prevail on Congress not to include handguns in the NFA. Too bad that part of the story is never told.

The weak position espoused by Orth is what culminated in the "Revolt at Cincinnati" in 1977. This in turn led to the creation of ILA which made the NRA the political powerhouse it is now.

Chas.
Mr. Cotton, I had to look up the "Revolt in Cincinnati", as I had not heard the term before. Of course, it was difficult to find a good source to read about it. The "best" one I could find was full of weasel words, innuendo, and slurs against the NRA, of course, but did seem to tell the gist of it. I was gratified to read that it was two Texans who led the charge to turn things around in the NRA, though.

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:42 am
by JustSomeOldGuy
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 yesterday....

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:38 pm
by AndyC
Signed.

By the way, Texans have the most to lose:

Image

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:15 pm
by MaduroBU
It seems like 265000 registered objects in a state that could go blue and is Trump's biggest source of electoral votes would matter to him.

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:27 pm
by The Annoyed Man
MaduroBU wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:15 pm
It seems like 265000 registered objects in a state that could go blue and is Trump's biggest source of electoral votes would matter to him.
You’d think. I can’t figure the GOP out any longer. I think that most of them are more interested in their popularity inside the DC beltway, than they interested in their popularity with their constituents.

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:42 pm
by Soccerdad1995
Jusme wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:02 pm
I have stayed out of this whole debate, mostly because it strayed so far off course. But in case anyone is interested, if Trump tried to ban anything, it would go to SCOTUS, and be overturned.
Secondly, I don't believe Trump, is well informed, on guns, suppressors, or any other firearm, related items. His sons, are more informed, and will, if they haven't already, filled him in, on the need for the hearing protection act. I simply believe Trump was caught off guard with the questioning, by PM. And he did reiterate several times, that preventing legal carry, in public places, can stop the type of shootings, they had in VA. Trump, has not always been on the right side of history, when it comes to the 2A, but I don't believe, he will make banning suppressors a priority. JMHO
I hope you're right, but I fear that you are wrong.

If I recall correctly from the draft ATF ban on bumpstocks, there were as many of those "firearms" (ATF's definition, not mine) as there are suppressor "firearms" that would be banned under this latest proposal. And the SCOTUS declined to hear the case of the bumpstock ban. Why do you think they would make a different decision this time? Both cases rely on similar, convoluted, legal arguments by the ATF that pieces of plastic / metal which are incapable of discharging projectiles of any type, are in fact, dangerous and unusual firearms.

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:24 pm
by deplorable
Soccerdad1995 wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:42 pm
Jusme wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:02 pm
I have stayed out of this whole debate, mostly because it strayed so far off course. But in case anyone is interested, if Trump tried to ban anything, it would go to SCOTUS, and be overturned.
Secondly, I don't believe Trump, is well informed, on guns, suppressors, or any other firearm, related items. His sons, are more informed, and will, if they haven't already, filled him in, on the need for the hearing protection act. I simply believe Trump was caught off guard with the questioning, by PM. And he did reiterate several times, that preventing legal carry, in public places, can stop the type of shootings, they had in VA. Trump, has not always been on the right side of history, when it comes to the 2A, but I don't believe, he will make banning suppressors a priority. JMHO
I hope you're right, but I fear that you are wrong.

If I recall correctly from the draft ATF ban on bumpstocks, there were as many of those "firearms" (ATF's definition, not mine) as there are suppressor "firearms" that would be banned under this latest proposal. And the SCOTUS declined to hear the case of the bumpstock ban. Why do you think they would make a different decision this time? Both cases rely on similar, convoluted, legal arguments by the ATF that pieces of plastic / metal which are incapable of discharging projectiles of any type, are in fact, dangerous and unusual firearms.
The Supremes recently denied cert on a silencer case.

Also, as Soccerdad1995 correctly notes, they haven't overturned Trump's stock ban. They wouldn't even grant a temporary stay pending their opportunity to hear the challenge to rules made by an agency at Trump's direction, bypassing Congress.

Therefore, the smart money says:

The Supremes won't do anything if the ATF stops registering new silencers by Trump's edict.

The Supremes won't do anything if Congress bans silencers for individuals and non-government entities.

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

Posted: Mon Jun 17, 2019 12:17 pm
by narcissist
It seams like everyone here would just give in their suppressors without a fight. Taking the bump stocks was "testing the water" so to speak, anyone not going to go down without a fight or has the lithium in the air and fluoride in the water turned all American men into pansies? History always repeats itself, id rather die on my feet then live on my knees! :fire

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

Posted: Mon Jun 17, 2019 12:35 pm
by 03Lightningrocks
To be honest, when Trump announced he was running in the primary's, I was wondering why a person who had been with the Democrats all their life would run as a Republican.

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

Posted: Mon Jun 17, 2019 12:57 pm
by flechero
03Lightningrocks wrote:
Mon Jun 17, 2019 12:35 pm
To be honest, when Trump announced he was running in the primary's, I was wondering why a person who had been with the Democrats all their life would run as a Republican.
Revenge, plain and simple.

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

Posted: Mon Jun 17, 2019 10:20 pm
by pushpullpete
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
Don't have one, signed.

:txflag: :patriot: