We Already Have the Law to Get Weapons of War Off Our Streets

[Joinfortmill]

https://hartmannreport.com/p/we-already-have-the-law-to-get-weapons?utm_source=substack&utm_medium

I urge you to read the entire article for the historical/legal history and precedents. (my words)

'Steven Spainhouer’s son worked at one of the stores in the Allen, Texas shopping mall chosen by America’s most recent mass shooter (as of Saturday: there were seven this weekend)...“The first girl I walked up to was crouched down covering her head in the bushes, so I felt for a pulse,”... he then “pulled her head to the side and she had no face.”...Next, he found a dead woman who appeared to be lying across a young boy.. I pulled him around the corner, sat him down..The child looked, “Like somebody poured blood on him. His mother’s blood." His dead mother who will never again hold or comfort that little boy for the rest of his life.

It turns out this slaughter isn’t...new or unique to the 21st century. America was once before awash in weapons of war, sparking a national fad of robbery and murder much like today’s trend of mass shootings....We still remember their names:
Bonnie and Clyde...Machine Gun Kelly...John Dillinger...Baby Face Nelson...Pretty Boy Floyd...Ma Barker...Al Capone
And then America said, “Enough!”...In 1934, Congress passed and President Roosevelt signed the National Firearms Act (NFA), which didn’t outlaw even one single gun. Instead, it put a tax on automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns, and a variety of other weapons of war. That’s all it took to stop the slaughter...None of the weapons listed in the NFA are “illegal.” But they are under control...To be eligible to pay the tax, you must first acquire a Federal Firearms License...Step one is to fill out an application with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, which you can find here. You pay a fee that can range from $30 to $3000 (most are $200 for fully automatic weapons, a number that hasn’t changed since 1934), provide a photo, and submit your fingerprints...After you’ve been checked out, you’ll be called in for an in-person interview with an ATF Industry Operations Investigator, who will vet you for ownership of your very own fully automatic machine gun...There were no gun buy-back programs back in the 1930s, and nobody went door-to-door confiscating guns....But once everybody understood that it was illegal to sell or possess an automatic or sawed-off weapon of war without first getting a license and paying the tax, they simply started to disappear from the American scene (outside of licensed shooting ranges like today).

Which brings us to a simple proposal. When enough ethical politicians hold office to pull it off (hopefully after the 2024 election), simply amend the National Firearms Act to include semiautomatic weapons along with the existing category of fully automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns.'

[Frasier Balzov]

1. If we wanted to make it financially impracticable to engage in gun commerce

we would repeal tort immunity for manufacturers and merchants.

[Joinfortmill]

2. You should write more about that...folks would be interested.

[Frasier Balzov]

5. Gabby Giffords's foundation is a good resource.

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/other-laws-policies/gun-industry-immunity/

[uponit7771]

4. +1, immunity should not exist when these manufacturers are aiming advertisement at children

[thatdemguy]

6. The major problem with this

Is it would open every manufacture of everything to law suits. Get hit by a drunk driver, sue the car maker of the car and the company who made the alcohol. Get hit with a baseball at a game, sue the maker of the base ball.

All it would take is one court case where the manufacture of an item which was found to hurt someone even when used by a third party.

Licensing and regulation is probably the best we will get, we should push for that. Then try to get the next step, but as long as the screwOTUS is still 6-3 we wont get much.

[uponit7771]

10. "every manufacture" doesn't advertise mass kill weapons to children and general public. Gun makers

... who sell mass kill weapons are no doubt in a category of their own

[thatdemguy]

14. Agreed gun makers make items designed to kill.

The majority of the guns dont. How does a court say to "you made an item that is designed to kill" and the manufacture says " and 99.99 % ( made up % )of them dont. " how can we be held liable for the one person ( this case in this court ) who used our item illegally". A sane person would respond "did you know that there is a chance someone would?". Which the right answer is "yes there is a chance"

Find the maker guilty, now you have court precedent.

A month later you would see a lawyer for a car company in court answering the question " did your company know someone might get behind the wheel drunk " to which the answer is "and 99.99 % ( made up % )of them dont. " how can we be held liable for the one person ( this case in this court ) who used our item illegally"..to which a sane person would respond "did you know that there is a chance someone would?". Which the right answer is "yes there is a chance"

There is long standing law in this country once an item is sold, unless the item is faulty or a factory defect ect the manufacture cant be held liable for how someone uses it, esp if it is used illegally or not how designed. Hence why we have warning labels on everything.

[uponit7771]

16. All of them are not designed for mass kill like a PGR (pistol gripped rifle) and the gun mans don't

... advertise these war weapons to children like they do PGRs.

[ForgedCrank]

33. Gun manufacturers

don't advertise their firearms as "mass kill weapons for children".

[Frasier Balzov]

13. Have other commercial interests successfully lobbied for such protection?

Or has it only been gun commerce?

Because they recognized that their future viability now depended on it

[thatdemguy]

15. Yes

Every manufacture of pretty much anything is shielded from any liability if someone purchases an item and uses it illegally or not as designed and someone gets hurt. ( esp if warnings are given )

Cars, drunk drivers
plastic bags and small children
Heck how many small kids have drowned in a 5 gallon bucket, and from this they dont say one maker was ever sued. [link:https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1994-10-16-9410160336-story.html|

[uponit7771]

3. "...amend...", Welp, that leaves out congress right there!!!!

[maxsolomon]

7. Semi-Automatic is the defacto modern firearm

that would be too broad for Congress.

Basically anything that would have an impact would be too broad for Congress.

[aeromanKC]

20. Any gun (or whatever term you want to use) that is north of 1 bullet 1 pull and 6 bullets max per

gun at any single loading.

[maxsolomon]

34. A S-A is 1 bullet per pull.

So, you want to limit the bullets available without a re-load.

Sounds fine to me; that will keep the body counts down to 6 or so. Anything's an improvement.

[aeromanKC]

36. Yep. Would have saved the little 9 year old girl in Gabby Giffords assassination attempt

The bullet that got here was bullet #12 if I remember right. And that shooter was apprehended when he had to reload.

[Bayard]

8. K&R for sensible gun laws

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

9. We are far more likely to see parts or all of the NFA tossed out

Then we are to see it expanded. The judicial landscape has changed drastically and not in the favor of sensible gun laws.

[maxsolomon]

35. I keep saying this - gun laws are only liberalizing.

I'm not sure people realize how deep the hole we're digging is, or that it keeps getting deeper.

[Crepuscular]

11. ...

There is a little more to the story than indicated in the OP's description of the impact of the 1934 NFA. Suggesting that the country was "Awash" in automatic weapons and sawed off shotguns prior to the NFA is pretty misleading. At the time, prior to WWII, there were simply not that many automatic weapons (long arms) available on the civilian market other than Thompson submachine guns and Broomhandle Mausers left over from WWI. They were popular with criminals, particularly during prohibition, but had little market appeal outside of criminal elements and the repeal of prohibition in 1933 and the 18th amendment probably had a much bigger impact on reducing demand for automatic weapons by criminals in this country than the 1934 NFA did.

Automatic weapons did not really start to grow in demand again in the U.S. until the war on drugs in the late 1970's and early 1980's, when Uzi's and Mak-10's, became the weapon of preference for drug dealers.

The current situation with automatic weapons in the U.S. was the result of the Hughes Act, in 1986, which closed the NFA registry to weapons in existence at that time for civilian ownership. Contrary to what was expressed in the OP, it was the outlawing of sales of new automatic weapons and other Class III weapons, that has resulted in the extremely high cost associated with buying and owning automatic weapons. The NFA $200 tax stamp has never been an obstacle compared to the fact that because there are only so many automatic weapons in the registry that can be legally owned by civilians has driven prices up to $10,000 to $20,000 for a single weapon.

The idea that duplicating the 1934 NFA by applying a $200 tax stamp and registration of semi-automatic rifles would have any kind of substantive impact on reducing the availability of these types of weapons denies reality. Guys typically have over $1K into their semi-auto's another $200 is not going to be a deal breaker. With more than 50 million semi-auto long arms in civilian ownership in this country currently, there would not be the same kind of shortage created by closing the registry, as was created in 1986 with the Hughes Act and prices would not rise to the level where most people could not afford them, as has happened with automatic weapons.

The single most effective regulation change that could be adopted on a national basis, that would have the greatest impact on reducing the lethality of semi-automatic weapons would be to adopt the regulation that New Jersey has, pinned magazines with a 10 round limit. It won't prevent mass shootings but it would make it a little bit harder for murderers, which is about the best that can be accomplished. Whether the courts would strike down that kind of regulation remains to be seen.

[Straw Man]

27. Bingo.

The current situation with automatic weapons in the U.S. was the result of the Hughes Act, in 1986, which closed the NFA registry to weapons in existence at that time for civilian ownership. Contrary to what was expressed in the OP, it was the outlawing of sales of new automatic weapons and other Class III weapons, that has resulted in the extremely high cost associated with buying and owning automatic weapons. The NFA $200 tax stamp has never been an obstacle compared to the fact that because there are only so many automatic weapons in the registry that can be legally owned by civilians has driven prices up to $10,000 to $20,000 for a single weapon.

Would the registry be re-opened so that new-manufacture guns could be bought and sold? Otherwise this is a de facto ban disguised as an economic solution. Expect massive pushback.

[NickB79]

12. Except, Hartmann is completely wrong on how the NFA works

I have no idea where he got this from:

To be eligible to pay the tax, you must first acquire a Federal Firearms License.

Step one is to fill out an application with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, which you can find here. You pay a fee that can range from $30 to $3000 (most are $200 for fully automatic weapons, a number that hasn’t changed since 1934), provide a photo, and submit your fingerprints.

After you’ve been checked out, you’ll be called in for an in-person interview with an ATF Industry Operations Investigator, who will vet you for ownership of your very own fully automatic machine gun.

You don't need a Federal Firearms License to purchase an NFA tax stamp. You also don't need to have an in-person interview with an ATF agent. Both of these things are only if you are opening your own business selling firearms.

Anyone with a clean criminal record can purchase a silencer, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, and even a machine gun without either of these. You simply fill out the required paperwork (readily available online), send it in with your fingerprint card and a check for $200, wait anywhere from a few weeks to a few months, and you'll receive your tax stamp from the ATF. Then you're free to purchase your NFA weapon from a dealer who carries such firearms and accessories.

The local gun store and shooting range near me, like a lot of gun stores these days, even does the paperwork for you. You just show up, they get your fingerprints and the check, you sign a few forms, and they file everything electronically. You can even pay for the firearm or silencer before you get your stamp and use it on their range while you're waiting for the ATF to finish up. Once you show them your stamp, you get to take the gun or silencer home.

But given how understaffed the ATF is, it would be a Herculean effort for them to get all 200 million semi-automatic pistols and rifles registered in under a decade right now. And unless you waived the $200 fee, your compliance rate would be measured in the single percentiles. That's currently what the ATF is doing now with AR-15 handguns equipped with pistol braces that have recently been reclassified as short-barreled rifles. You can register your AR pistol for free.

And, NFA weapons are fully transferable, so you can sell your gun if you decide to, as long as the buyer also has their tax stamp. I mean, I see what his underlying intent is. It makes guns more expensive to buy, it creates a defacto waiting period while the ATF does the paperwork, and it creates a gun registry database. I'm not opposed to any of that, since it doesn't affect me one bit, but it does seem like a backdoor approach to things politicians should just say out loud to the voters.

[Straw Man]

29. NY's SAFE Act of 2013 ...

But given how understaffed the ATF is, it would be a Herculean effort for them to get all 200 million semi-automatic pistols and rifles registered in under a decade right now. And unless you waived the $200 fee, your compliance rate would be measured in the single percentiles. That's currently what the ATF is doing now with AR-15 handguns equipped with pistol braces that have recently been reclassified as short-barreled rifles. You can register your AR pistol for free.

... banned the sale of AR-type rifles and mandated registration of previously-owned ones. Estimates place compliance with the registration requirement at around 4%.

[Abigail_Adams]

17. Why not do something similar

and basically tax AR15s and their ilk out of existence? I know it would be hard to get it passed, but imagine how many fewer would be on the streets. "Want that semiautomatic rifle, buddy? That's a 100 percent sales tax."

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

30. Because you can't use a punitive tax to restrict a right

Same goes for taxing ammunition. Ammo is requirement to exercise the right, therefor its protected as well. Already been a court case and decision over this concept.

[Kaleva]

18. There weren't 10s of millions of automatics privately owned back then

It's also highly unlikely law enforcement in gun friendly regions would assist in enforcing such a law

Remember Prohibition?

[Chainfire]

19. There are solutions, the work, other countries have proven it.

You just have to get them past a Supreme Court that will support the gun industry over the people.

[summer_in_TX]

21. And around the Second Amendment.

That's the real stumbling block.

[Chainfire]

22. It is not a stumbling block if the SC interpreted the first phrase in the context of the time it was

written.

[yonder]

23. The "Well-Regulated Militia Act of 2023"

could be an appropriate name for this measure.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

24. I understand there were right wing hate groups then.

But we're they the same people using the machine guns? I thought that was due to prohibition and gangsters making money off of it.

[dchill]

25. How about a $100 per bullet tax on ammunition?

You know, those non-hunting calibers.

[NickB79]

26. The 5.56mm round fired by AR-15's is legal for deer hunting in most states

Pretty much every caliber is legal for hunting in at least one state.

[dchill]

28. I'm okay with an across-the-board tax. I was trying to be fair.

I'm just not feeling that way, right about now.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

31. Punitive tax isn't legal when trying to restrict a right

Like it or not, there is a right to own a gun for lawful purposes, including self defense, and exercising that right requires ammunition. So you cannot slap a punitive tax on guns or ammo in an attempt to restrict them. The concept was already attempted for printer ink and newspapers and it got shot down by SCOTUS. And that decision still stands today.

[dchill]

32. More's the pity.

Sounds like a more important right than...
others one might mention.